Key result
Percutaneous LAAO does not alter left atrial reservoir strain.
Why the study?
The impact of percutaneous LAAO with the Amplatz or Amulet device on left atrial deformation mechanics had not been investigated.
Does percutaneous LAAO with the Amplatz or Amulet device improve echocardiographic LA deformation indices in patients undergoing LAAO?
Observational (n=28)
No
Does percutaneous LAAO with the Amplatz or Amulet device improve echocardiographic LA deformation indices in patients undergoing LAAO?
Absolute Event Rate: 10.18% vs 10.15%
p-value: p=0.985
Percutaneous LAAO with Amplatz or Amulet devices does not significantly alter left atrial mechanical function as measured by deformation indices at short-term follow-up.
Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an accepted alternative to thromboprophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are: i) intolerant to oral anticoagulation (OAC) (e.g. life-threatening haemorrhage), ii) non-adherent to OAC, or iii) at a high bleeding risk with OAC. Improvement in LA mechanics was shown post-LAAO in the LAFIT-LARIAT study, using the Lariat device. No significant change was seen in LA mechanics after LAAO with the Watchman device in the LAFIT-Watchman study. The impact of LAAO with the Amplatz or Amulet device on LA deformation mechanics has not been investigated. Purpose: To evaluate the impact of LAAO with the Amplatz or Amulet device on echocardiographic LA deformation indices. Methods: All patients undergoing percutaneous LAAO from 2013 to 2021 at a single centre were included from an ongoing clinical registry. LA reservoir (ε reservoir ), conduit (ε conduit ) and contractile strain (ε contractile ) and strain rate (SR reservoir , SR conduit , SR contractile ) were assessed with two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography from an apical four-chamber view. Conduit and contractile strain and strain rates were only recorded for patients without AF at the time of echocardiography. Changes in LA deformation indices over time were compared with a linear mixed model. Results: 28 LAAO recipients (mean age 73±12 years, 68% male) were analysed. 5 (18%) patients had AF pre- or post-procedure. After a mean follow-up of 1.6±1.4 months, the mean LA ε reservoir increased from 10.15±6.44% to 10.18±8.72% (p=0.985), the mean LA ε conduit increased from 5.12±5.48% to 5.31±6.11% (p=0.891) and the mean LA ε contractile decreased from 5.14±4.32% to 4.95±5.30% (p=0.898). During the same time interval, the mean LA SR reservoir decreased from +0.54±0.23.s -1 to +0.48±0.43.s -1 (p=0.566), the mean LA SR conduit remained stable: -0.47±0.41.s -1 to -0.47±0.32.s -1 (p=0.997) and the mean LA SR contractile decreased from -0.66±0.50.s -1 to -0.55±0.46.s -1 (p=0.660). Conclusions: No significant improvement in LA mechanical function was seen after LAAO with the Amplatz or Amulet device. Different LAAO devices therefore appear to have divergent effects on LA deformation, the clinical implications of which may warrant further study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dippenaar et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=28). Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (Amplatz or Amulet device) vs. Baseline (pre-procedure) was evaluated on Mean left atrial reservoir strain (%) (p=0.985). Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion with the Amplatz or Amulet device did not significantly change left atrial reservoir strain (10.15% to 10.18%, p=0.985) after 1.6 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: