Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices
Abstract Background The interventional left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a guideline-conform alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with OAC ineligibility. It was aimed to directly compare two contemporary devices in a real-world patient populati...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2018-08-01
|
| Series: | BMC Cardiovascular Disorders |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12872-018-0899-9 |
| _version_ | 1818873610037624832 |
|---|---|
| author | Christian Fastner Lea Hoffmann Mohamed Aboukoura Michael Behnes Siegfried Lang Martin Borggrefe Ibrahim Akin Christoph A. Nienaber |
| author_facet | Christian Fastner Lea Hoffmann Mohamed Aboukoura Michael Behnes Siegfried Lang Martin Borggrefe Ibrahim Akin Christoph A. Nienaber |
| author_sort | Christian Fastner |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background The interventional left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a guideline-conform alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with OAC ineligibility. It was aimed to directly compare two contemporary devices in a real-world patient population. Methods LAAC was conducted in two centres between 2010 and 2014 as well as between 2014 and 2017, respectively, in a standard fashion based on the specific manufacturer’s recommendations. Baseline characteristics, procedural data and event rates during intra-hospital and 6 months follow-up were registered in a retrospective approach, and analysed in device-related groups. Results A total of 189 patients presented for LAAC device implantation. Baseline characteristics were mostly evenly distributed. In 148 patients, a Watchman™ device (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) was successfully implanted, an Amplatzer™ Amulet™ (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA) in 34 patients (96.1 and 97.1%, respectively; p = 1.00). Major access site bleedings were more frequent in the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ group (8.9 versus 1.4%; p = 0.046). No intra-hospital thromboembolic event was present. During 6 months follow-up, peri-device leaks > 5 mm and thromboembolic events were uncommon (each p = n.s.). Conclusions While procedural success was equally high with both contemporary devices, complications during follow-up were rare, and evenly distributed. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-19T12:57:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d043eaa6c6c24c25855f1db78f789f21 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2261 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-19T12:57:26Z |
| publishDate | 2018-08-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Cardiovascular Disorders |
| spelling | doaj.art-d043eaa6c6c24c25855f1db78f789f212022-12-21T20:20:22ZengBMCBMC Cardiovascular Disorders1471-22612018-08-011811910.1186/s12872-018-0899-9Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devicesChristian Fastner0Lea Hoffmann1Mohamed Aboukoura2Michael Behnes3Siegfried Lang4Martin Borggrefe5Ibrahim Akin6Christoph A. Nienaber7First Department of Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, European Centre for AngioScience (ECAS), and DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research) partner site Heidelberg/MannheimDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital RostockDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital RostockFirst Department of Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, European Centre for AngioScience (ECAS), and DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research) partner site Heidelberg/MannheimFirst Department of Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, European Centre for AngioScience (ECAS), and DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research) partner site Heidelberg/MannheimFirst Department of Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, European Centre for AngioScience (ECAS), and DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research) partner site Heidelberg/MannheimFirst Department of Medicine, University Medical Centre Mannheim (UMM), Faculty of Medicine Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, European Centre for AngioScience (ECAS), and DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research) partner site Heidelberg/MannheimRoyal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom and National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College LondonAbstract Background The interventional left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a guideline-conform alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with OAC ineligibility. It was aimed to directly compare two contemporary devices in a real-world patient population. Methods LAAC was conducted in two centres between 2010 and 2014 as well as between 2014 and 2017, respectively, in a standard fashion based on the specific manufacturer’s recommendations. Baseline characteristics, procedural data and event rates during intra-hospital and 6 months follow-up were registered in a retrospective approach, and analysed in device-related groups. Results A total of 189 patients presented for LAAC device implantation. Baseline characteristics were mostly evenly distributed. In 148 patients, a Watchman™ device (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) was successfully implanted, an Amplatzer™ Amulet™ (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA) in 34 patients (96.1 and 97.1%, respectively; p = 1.00). Major access site bleedings were more frequent in the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ group (8.9 versus 1.4%; p = 0.046). No intra-hospital thromboembolic event was present. During 6 months follow-up, peri-device leaks > 5 mm and thromboembolic events were uncommon (each p = n.s.). Conclusions While procedural success was equally high with both contemporary devices, complications during follow-up were rare, and evenly distributed.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12872-018-0899-9Atrial fibrillationLeft atrial appendageLeft atrial appendage closure deviceOutcomeComparison |
| spellingShingle | Christian Fastner Lea Hoffmann Mohamed Aboukoura Michael Behnes Siegfried Lang Martin Borggrefe Ibrahim Akin Christoph A. Nienaber Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Atrial fibrillation Left atrial appendage Left atrial appendage closure device Outcome Comparison |
| title | Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices |
| title_full | Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices |
| title_fullStr | Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices |
| title_full_unstemmed | Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices |
| title_short | Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices |
| title_sort | real world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices |
| topic | Atrial fibrillation Left atrial appendage Left atrial appendage closure device Outcome Comparison |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12872-018-0899-9 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT christianfastner realworldexperiencecomparingtwocommonleftatrialappendageclosuredevices AT leahoffmann realworldexperiencecomparingtwocommonleftatrialappendageclosuredevices AT mohamedaboukoura realworldexperiencecomparingtwocommonleftatrialappendageclosuredevices AT michaelbehnes realworldexperiencecomparingtwocommonleftatrialappendageclosuredevices AT siegfriedlang realworldexperiencecomparingtwocommonleftatrialappendageclosuredevices AT martinborggrefe realworldexperiencecomparingtwocommonleftatrialappendageclosuredevices AT ibrahimakin realworldexperiencecomparingtwocommonleftatrialappendageclosuredevices AT christophanienaber realworldexperiencecomparingtwocommonleftatrialappendageclosuredevices |