Inpatient Outcomes Of Watchman Procedure In Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
Omar Al Wahadneh,Apoorva Raju,Naveed Adoni
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.167
IF: 6.592
2024-01-01
Journal of Cardiac Failure
Abstract:Introduction Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is strongly associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without HFpEF. In cases where anticoagulation is contraindicated, the Watchman device is a suitable alternative for stroke prevention. However, the safety of the Watchman device in patients with HFpEF has not been extensively studied. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the inpatient and intraprocedural complications with Watchman procedure in patients with atrial fibrillation and HFpEF, compared to those with atrial fibrillation but without heart failure; those with reduced ejection fraction were excluded from the study. Methods The study involved the identification of admissions for the Watchman device procedure, and patients with a history of HfpEF were identified. The primary outcomes were mortality, length of stay, and total charges, while the secondary outcomes were inpatient and intraprocedural complications. Data from the National Inpatient Sample (2016-2020) were analyzed using Kernel propensity matching to increase validity. Results 89,300 watchman procedures were performed between 2016 and 2020, out of which 13,655 had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. After applying Kernel propensity matching 14417 who had watchman insertion without heart failure with preserved ejection fraction were matched to 2604 patients who have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The study showed no significant difference in primary outcomes including mortality (0.4% Vs. 0.3%, OR: 1.0, 95% CI:0.67-1.35, P=0.40), length of stay (1.77 Vs. 1.76 days, OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.78-1.26, P=0.87), total hospital charges ($128,472 Vs. $130528, OR: 0, P= 0.40), there was no significant difference in inpatient complications including post-operative heart failure (0.03% Vs. 0%, OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.00, P=0.31), major bleeding requiring transfusions (0.11% Vs. 0.20 %, OR: 0.99, 95% CI:0.99-1.00, P=0.28), Pulmonary embolism (0.2% Vs. 0.06%, OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.00, P= 0.09) or ischemic stroke (0.04% Vs. 0.14%, OR: 0.99, 95% CI:0.99-1.00, P=0.051). intra- procedure complications were also investigated, and there was no statically significant difference in pericardial effusion (0.11% Vs. 0.08%, OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.00, P=0.24), peri-device leakage (0.07% Vs. 0.00, OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.002, P=0.18), device displacement (0.11% Vs. 0.05%, OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.00, P=0.42), device removal (0.50% Vs. 0.57%, OR: 0.99, 95% CI:0.99-1.00, P=0.65), or transitioning to open approach (0.11% Vs. 0.09%, OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.00, P=0.77). Conclusion The results of our study suggest that the use of the Watchman device for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation and HFpEF does not pose a higher risk of adverse outcomes compared to patients without HFpEF. The study found no significant differences in inpatient and intraprocedural complications, mortality rates, length of stay, and total charges between the two groups. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Watchman device is safe to use in patients with HFpEF.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems