Safety and effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure in atrial fibrillation patients with different types of heart failure

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

BackgroundBoth 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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsOverall, 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).ConclusionsLAAC 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.