Amplatzer left atrial appendage closure: Single versus combined procedures.

Kleinecke, Caroline; Buffle, Eric; Link, Juergen; Häner, Jonas; Sedaghat, Alexander; Galea, Roberto; Streit, Samuel R; Windecker, Stephan; Meier, Bernhard; Gloekler, Steffen (2021). Amplatzer left atrial appendage closure: Single versus combined procedures. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 97(7), E973-E981. Wiley-Blackwell 10.1002/ccd.29271

Text Amplatzer_left_atrial_appendage_closure.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (1MB)

OBJECTIVES

This study compares procedural and late clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with Amplatzer devices as a single versus a combined procedure with other structural or coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND

Multiple cardiac conditions are frequent among elderly patients and invite simultaneous treatment to ensure a favorable patient outcomes.

METHODS

559 consecutive patients (73.3 ± 11.1 years) underwent LAAC with Amplatzer devices at two centres (Bern and Zurich university hospitals, Switzerland) either as a single procedure or combined with other interventions. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding at follow-up, the primary efficacy endpoint included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death. All event rates are reported per 100 patient-years.

RESULTS

In 263 single and 296 combined procedures with percutaneous coronary interventions (47.6%), closure of an atrial septal defect (8.4%) or a patent foramen ovale (36.5%), transcatheter aortic valve implantation (10.1%), mitral clipping (4.1%), atrial fibrillation ablation (8.8%), or another procedure (3.0%) were analyzed. Device success (96.6% [single] vs. 99.0% [combined], p = .08) did not differ between the groups. After a mean follow-up of 2.6 ± 1.5 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 years and a total of 1,422 patient-years, the primary efficacy (40/677, 5.9% [single] vs. 37/745, 5.0% [combined]; HR, 1.2, 95% CI, 0.8-1.9, p = .44), as well as the primary safety endpoint (25/677, 3.7% vs 28/745, 3.8%; HR, 1.0, 95% CI, 0.6-1.8, p = .89) were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

LAAC with Amplatzer devices combined with structural, coronary, and electrophysiological procedures offers procedural feasibility and safety, as well as long-term efficacy.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

1 since deposited on 21 Jan 2022
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item