Comparison of peri-device sealing and procedural outcome after LAA closure in patients with and without isolated left atrial appendage

Abstract

Abstract Background Catheter-based electrical isolation of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is increasingly performed in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) not responding to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Since the electrically isolated LAA is known to be susceptible to thromboembolism, endovascular LAA occlusion (LAAO) is increasingly being used. Objective We performed a procedural and clinical outcome analysis over 12 months in patients receiving two different LAAO device systems and compared those with versus those without LAA isolation (LAAI). Methods Between 08/2021 and 10/2022 we enrolled 83 consecutive patients (median age 73.2 years; median CHA2DS2-VASc Score 3.0; 51 men [61%]) of whom 59 (71%) had LAAI and 24 (29%) no LAAI. All patients had a least one previous catheter ablation procedure of AF. LAAO was done 6 weeks after the last ablation procedure. The main indication for LAAO was the implementation of electrical LAAI. In the no-LAAI group, all patients had lost persistent LAAI. Implanted devices were Watchman FLXTM (n=30) and LAmbreTM (n=53). Pertinent procedural data, periprocedural complications, as well as peri-device leaks (PDL) at 45 days were assessed according to device type. The composite endpoints (death, TIA/stroke, device thrombus, bleeding) and the clinical impact after switch of anticoagulation therapy were assessed at 12 months follow-up. Results The distribution of LAAI/No LAAI were found in 21[70%]/9 patients treated with the Watchman device and in 38[72%]/15 patients treated with the LAmbre device (p=0.87). PDL on follow-up (f/u) TEE was observed in 13/54 LAAI patients (24%) and 10/23 No-LAAI patients (43%, p=0.089). Leak distribution (<3mm/3-5mm/>5mm/no leak) at f/u was different between LAAI groups (LAAI: 12/1/0/41; No LAAI: 5/4/1/13; p=0.027) but not between device types. The mechanisms of leaks according to device type are listed in Table 1. Procedural complications were observed in 6/59 LAAI patients and 0/24 No-LAAI patients (p=0.11). The composite endpoint of death, stroke, severe bleeding, device-related thrombus and thromboembolism was reached by a total of 2 patients (both LAAI with LAmbre device). In 9/13 LAAI-group patients (69%) with PDL (all <6 mm) the sealing effect was assumed to be incomplete with perfusion of the LAA. Post procedural anticoagulation therapy was switched after the control TEE from NOAC/VKA (8/1) to aspirin alone. None of these patients reached the composite endpoint after 12 months. Conclusions LAAO can be performed safely and efficaciously in patients with LAAI. Compared with patients without LAAI after LAAO, the occurrence of minor leaks, periprocedural complications, and composite endpoint events was not different between the two patient groups. Despite the presence of incomplete sealing with perfusion of LAA in the LAAI group, the switch in post-procedural anticoagulation seems to be safe regarding the composite endpoint after 12 months.Mechanism of PDL of the LAmbre DeviceMechanism of PDL between the LAAO types