In-hospital safety of catheter based left atrial appendage closure in Germany 2016 - 2020

Abstract

Abstract Background New catheter based left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion devices were introduced in the past decade. Catheter based LAA occlusion can be performed through a permanently implanted intracardiac LAA occlusion device or a loop stitch around the base of the LAA via an additional pericardial access. Knowledge about recent in-hospital safety trends and center volume dependent outcomes is limited. Methods Catheter based LAA closures in Germany were identified via ICD and OPS codes from 2016 - 2020. Adjusted risk differences for loop stitch procedures were calculated using an inverse probability weighting approach taking into account 17 predefined baseline characteristics. Center volume dependent outcomes were calculated using a risk adjusted logistics regression analysis taking into account the same predefined baseline characteristics. Results 28 039 permanently intracardiac implanted LAA occlusion device procedures and 213 loop stitch LAA occlusions were performed from 2016 - 2020. Numbers of permanently implanted occlusion device procedures increased from 5 259 in 2016 to 5 917 in 2020 (p = 0.020) without a significant trend for in-hospital safety parameters. Risk adjusted logistic regression analysis of center volume depended MACCE and pericardial puncture for permanently implanted occlusion devices did not show a significant trend. Patients receiving the loop stitch procedure were younger (76.17 +/- 8.16 vs. 73.16 +/- 8.99, p < 0.001), had a lower comorbidity index (2.29 +/- 1.93 vs. 1.92 +/- 1.64, 0.005) and less previous myocardial infarctions (7.82 % vs. 3.29 %, p = 0.014) or cardiac surgeries (12.34 % vs. 6.57 %, p = 0.011). Adjusted risk difference of pericardial effusion (8.04 %; 95% CI: 3.01 % – 13.08 %; p = 0.002) and pericardial puncture (6.60 %; 95% CI: 3.85 % – 9.35 %; p < 0.001) was higher for the LAA loop stitch procedure, while risk of bleeding (-1.85 %; 95% CI: -3.01 % to -0.69 %; p = 0.002), intracerebral bleeding (-0.37 %; 95% CI: -0.59 % to -0.15 %; p = 0.001) and shock (-1.41 %; 95% CI: -2.44 % to -0.39 %; p = 0.007) was lower. No significant difference was observed for in-hospital MACCE. Conclusions Permanently implanted occlusion devices were the major catheter based LAA closure procedure in Germany without improvements in in-hospital safety from 2016 – 2020. Center volumes did not influence in-hospital MACCE and pericardial puncture for the permanently implanted LAAC devices. LAA loop stitch occlusion was used much less frequently and was associated with a higher risk of pericardial effusion and pericardial puncture, a lower risk of bleeding and shock and no significant risk difference in MACCE.