Periprocedural efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure: a single-centre retrospective study
李双,刘建云,贾鹏,任重远,李翔,闫美玉,王依倩,张敬莹,裴艳,郭荣,李海玲,吴彦,林逸贤,唐恺,朱梦云,赵冬冬,陈维,徐亚伟
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.2096-1588.2019.1000030
2019-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To analyze retrospectively the periprocedural efficacy and safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC).Subjects:Between April 2014 and March 2019, 550[315 males (57.3%) and 235 females (42.7%), aged 70.2±8.7 (from 38 to 89) years] patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (paroxysmal,
n=181, 32.9%; persistent or long-standing persistent,
n=369, 67.1%) were enrolled consecutively for LAAC in Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital.
Interventions:LAAC was performed using two-size and 6-brand occluders [plug-like occluder (PLO) including Watchman, and Lefort; disc-like occluder (DLO) including LAmbre, Leftear, Lacbes, and Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP)].Main Outcomes and Measurements:The main outcomes were rates of implant success and peri-procedural complications. Implant success was defined as the immediate peri-device leak (PDL)≤5 mm for PLO or 3 mm for DLO, determined by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) , respectively. Serious adverse events (SAE) included death, stroke, serious pericardial effusion, and other associated serious complications.Results:A total of 550 patients were enrolled in this study, including 328 patients with PLOs (257 with Watchman, and 81 with Lefort) and 222 with DLOs (131 with LAmbre, 48 with Leftear, 40 with Lacbes, and 3 with ACPs). The CHA
2DS
2-VAS
c score was 4.5±1.8. The device was successfully deployed in 99.6% (547 in 550) of patients with no flow achieved in 90.7% and minimal residual flow (PDL ≤ 3 mm) achieved in 99.3% of implanted patients. Compared with the procedure with DLO, LAAC with PLO has a higher rate of the concomitant catheter ablation [232 (70.7%)
vs. 68 (30.6%),χ
2=85.8,
P<0.05]. Compared with the procedure using DLO, LAAC using PLO has a lower rate of device replacement [47 subjects (21.2%)
vs. 22 subjects (6.7%),χ
2=25.2443,
P<0.01]. Nine procedures which failed with PLO initially, were successfully done using DLOs remedially with an implant success rate of 88.9% (8 in 9). Eighteen periprocedural SAEs occurred in sixteen patients (2.9%) including death, stroke, ventricular fibrillation, and device misplacement (one patient each). Seven serious pericardial effusions (1.3%, one received surgical repair) and four pseudoaneurysm or arteriovenous fistulas (one received surgical repair), and three coronary artery compression with PLO occurred.
Conclusions:LAAC procedure is safe and effective using various occluders. Implantation with PLO is relatively simple and more commonly implemented when accompanied by ablation. DLO could be used for the closure of LAA with challenging anatomy which initially failed with PLO.