Why the study?
Does the dedicated Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) improve procedural and clinical outcomes compared to non-dedicated devices for left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Observational
Does the dedicated Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) improve procedural and clinical outcomes compared to non-dedicated devices for left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation?
This study aims to compare the procedural and clinical outcomes of dedicated versus non-dedicated Amplatzer devices for left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Results not reported quantitatively in this cohort; leaves open whether dedicated ACP improves LAA closure outcomes.
Summary Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) carries an increased risk of systemic thrombo-embolism. More than 90% of emboli in non-valvular AF originate from the left atrial appendage (LAA). Percutaneous closure of the LAA offers an alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC). Amplatzer devices have been proposed for this. A dedicated device (Amplatzer Cardiac Plug [ACP]) has been introduced to improve safety and efficacy compared to non-dedicated devices (NDAs, atrial and ventricular septal occluders) used previously for LAA closure. Objective: The present study investigated procedural and clinical outcomes of LAA closure with the new ACP compared to NDAs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schmid et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation. Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) vs. Non-dedicated Amplatzer devices (NDAs) was evaluated on Procedural and clinical outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: