Asunto(s)
Apéndice Atrial , Fibrilación Atrial , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo , Venas Pulmonares , Humanos , Apéndice Atrial/cirugía , Fibrilación Atrial/cirugía , Fibrilación Atrial/complicaciones , Ligadura/efectos adversos , Ligadura/métodos , Venas Pulmonares/cirugía , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo/efectos adversos , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Both atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are common cardiovascular diseases. If the two exist together, the risk of stroke, hospitalization for HF and all-cause death is increased. Currently, research on left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with AF and HF is limited and controversial. This study was designed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of LAAC in AF patients with different types of HF. METHODS: Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and HF who underwent LAAC in the First Affiliated Hospital of Army Medical University from August 2014 to July 2021 were enrolled. According to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the study divided into HF with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF < 50%, HFrEF) group and HF with preserved ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 50%, HFpEF) group. The data we collected from patients included: gender, age, comorbid diseases, CHA2DS2-VASc score, HAS-BLED score, NT-proBNP level, residual shunt, cardiac catheterization results, occluder size, postoperative medication regimen, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) results and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) results, etc. Patients were followed up for stroke, bleeding, device related thrombus (DRT), pericardial tamponade, hospitalization for HF, and all-cause death within 2 years after surgery. Statistical methods were used to compare the differences in clinical outcome of LAAC in AF patients with different types of HF. RESULTS: Overall, 288 NVAF patients with HF were enrolled in this study, including 142 males and 146 females. There were 74 patients in the HFrEF group and 214 patients in the HFpEF group. All patients successfully underwent LAAC. The CHA2DS2-VASc score and HAS-BLED score of HFrEF group were lower than those of HFpEF group. A total of 288 LAAC devices were implanted. The average diameter of the occluders was 27.2 ± 3.5 mm in the HFrEF group and 26.8 ± 3.3 mm in the HFpEF group, and there was no statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.470). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of residual shunts between the two groups as detected by TEE after surgery (P = 0.341). LVEF was significantly higher in HFrEF group at 3 days, 3 months and 1 year after operation than before (P < 0.001). At 45-60 days after surgery, we found DRT in 9 patients and there were 4 patients (5.4%) in HFrEF group and 5 patients (2.3%) in HFpEF group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.357). One patient with DRT had stroke. The incidence of stroke was 11.1% in patients with DRT and 0.7% in patients without DRT (P = 0.670). There was one case of postoperative pericardial tamponade, which was improved by pericardiocentesis at 24 h after surgery in the HFpEF group, and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 1.000). During a mean follow-up period of 49.7 ± 22.4 months, there were no significant differences in the incidence of stroke, bleeding, DRT and HF exacerbation between the two groups. We found a statistical difference in the improvement of HF between HFrEF group and HFpEF group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LAAC is safe and effective in AF patients with different types of HF. The improvement of cardiac function after LAAC is more pronounced in HFrEF group than in HFpEF group.
Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial , Función del Atrio Izquierdo , Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Función Ventricular Izquierda , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Apéndice Atrial/diagnóstico por imagen , Apéndice Atrial/fisiopatología , Apéndice Atrial/cirugía , Fibrilación Atrial/complicaciones , Fibrilación Atrial/diagnóstico , Fibrilación Atrial/fisiopatología , Fibrilación Atrial/cirugía , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/complicaciones , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/fisiopatología , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/cirugía , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo/efectos adversos , Recuperación de la Función , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & control , Volumen Sistólico , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has been suggested as an alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, but comparative data remain scarce. We aimed to assess ischemic and bleeding outcomes of LAAC compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the prevention of cardioembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Embase and MEDLINE were searched for randomized trials comparing LAAC, VKAs, and DOACs. The primary efficacy end point was any stroke or systemic embolism. Treatment effects were calculated from a network meta-analysis and ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Seven trials and 73 199 patients were included. The risk of the primary end point was not statistically different between LAAC versus VKAs (odds ratio [OR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.62-1.50]) and LAAC versus DOACs (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.73]). LAAC and DOACs resulted in similar risk of major or minor (OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.61-1.42]) and major bleeding (OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.58-1.46]); however, after exclusion of procedural bleeding, bleeding risk was significantly lower in those undergoing LAAC. Both LAAC and DOACs reduced the risk of all-cause death compared with VKAs (LAAC versus VKAs: OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.91]; DOACs versus VKAs: OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.85-0.95], respectively). DOACs ranked as the best treatment for stroke or systemic embolism prevention (66.9%) and LAAC for reducing major bleeding (63.9%) and death (96.4%). CONCLUSIONS: As a nonpharmacological alternative to oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, LAAC showed similar efficacy and safety compared with VKAs or DOACs. Prospective confirmation from larger studies is warranted.
Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes , Fibrilación Atrial , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo , Humanos , Administración Oral , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Anticoagulantes/administración & dosificación , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Fibrilación Atrial/complicaciones , Fibrilación Atrial/terapia , Hemorragia/inducido químicamente , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo/efectos adversos , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo/métodos , Metaanálisis en Red , Factores de Riesgo , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & control , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) represents an alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). While transoesophageal echocardiography is the current standard for guiding LAAC procedures, several centers have employed fluoroscopic guidance alone. However, data on long-term outcomes are lacking. METHODS: A total of 536 patients with AF undergoing LAAC and with available data on long-term follow-up were included in the retrospective, single-center analysis. Outcomes of patients undergoing fluoroscopy-guided LAAC were compared with those undergoing echocardiography guided LAAC. Time-dependent analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 234 (44%) and 302 (56%) patients were treated with echocardiography and fluoroscopy guidance, respectively. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the two groups. Procedural success rates were high in both groups (97% of fluoroscopy vs. 98% of echocardiography guided procedures; p = 0.92) and rates of relevant peri-device leaks (p = 0.50) and device-related thrombus formation (p = 0.22) did not differ between groups. Median clinical follow-up time was 48 (IQR 19-73) months. Rates of all-cause mortality (p = 0.15, HR 0.83, CI 0.64-1.07) and stroke (p = 0.076, HR 2.23, CI 0.90-5.54) were comparable among groups. CONCLUSION: LAAC with fluoroscopy guidance alone is equally safe and leads to similar clinical outcome compared to LAAC with additional echocardiography guidance.
Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial , Ecocardiografía Transesofágica , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo , Radiografía Intervencional , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Ultrasonografía Intervencional , Humanos , Apéndice Atrial/diagnóstico por imagen , Apéndice Atrial/fisiopatología , Fibrilación Atrial/complicaciones , Fibrilación Atrial/diagnóstico por imagen , Fibrilación Atrial/mortalidad , Fibrilación Atrial/terapia , Fluoroscopía , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo/efectos adversos , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo/instrumentación , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Radiografía Intervencional/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & control , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Ultrasonografía Intervencional/efectos adversosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) not suitable for long-term anticoagulant therapy undergo percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using the WATCHMAN device. The safety and efficacy of WATCHMAN-FLX (WM-FLX) compared with WATCHMAN-2.5 (WM-2.5), particularly in Asian populations, is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated the background, procedure, and clinical outcomes of 199 patients who underwent LAAC between September 2019 and December 2022 and compared WM-2.5 (72 patients) with WM-FLX (127 patients). RESULTS: The mean age was 76 years, with 128 men, and 100 had nonparoxysmal AF (non-PAF). The mean CHA2DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED were 5.1, and 3.2 points, respectively. WM-FLX group demonstrated a shorter procedure time than WM-2.5 group (50 vs. 42 min, p = 0.001). The WM-FLX group demonstrated no procedural-related acute cardiac tamponade, which was significantly low (5.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.02), and a significantly higher rate of complete seal at 45-day (63% vs. 80%, p = 0.04). WM-FLX group had a significantly higher cumulative 1-year incidence of device-related thrombosis (DRT) than WM-2.5 group (3.4% vs. 7.0%, Log-rank p = 0.01). Univariate analysis identified two DRT risk factors in the WM-FLX group: non-PAF (odds ratio [OR] 7.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-48.7; p = 0.04), and 35-mm device (OR 5.13; 95% CI 1.31-19.8; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: WM-FLX significantly improved the procedural quality and safety of LAAC. However, DRT remains an important issue even in the novel LAAC device, being a hazard for patients with high DRT risk, such as having non-PAF and using 35-mm devices.
Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo , Trombosis , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Apéndice Atrial/fisiopatología , Apéndice Atrial/diagnóstico por imagen , Fibrilación Atrial/fisiopatología , Fibrilación Atrial/diagnóstico , Fibrilación Atrial/terapia , Incidencia , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo/efectos adversos , Cierre del Apéndice Auricular Izquierdo/instrumentación , Diseño de Prótesis , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & control , Trombosis/etiología , Trombosis/prevención & control , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Approximately 90% of intracardial thrombi originate from the left atrial appendage in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients. Even with anticoagulant therapy, left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT) still occurs in 8% of patients. While left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) could be a promising alternative, the current consensus considers LAAT a contraindication to LAAC. However, the feasibility and safety of LAAC in patients with LAAT have yet to be determined. METHODS: This systematic review synthesizes published data to explore the feasibility and safety of LAAC for patients with LAAT. RESULTS: This study included a total of 136 patients with LAATs who underwent successful LAAC. The Amulet Amplatzer device was the most frequently utilized device (48.5%). Among these patients, 77 (56.6%) had absolute contraindications to anticoagulation therapy. Cerebral protection devices were utilized by 47 patients (34.6%). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is the primary imaging technique used during the procedure. Warfarin and novel oral anticoagulants were the main anticoagulant medications used prior to the procedure, while dual antiplatelet therapy was primarily used post-procedure. During a mean follow-up period of 13.2 ± 11.5 months, there was 1 case of fatality, 1 case of stroke, 3 major bleeding events, 3 instances of device-related thrombus, and 8 cases of peri-device leakage. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the preliminary effectiveness and safety of the LAAC procedure in patients with persistent LAAT. Future large-scale RCTs with varied LAAT characteristics and LAAC device types are essential for evidence-based decision-making in clinical practice.