Key result
Complete versus incomplete Amplatzer Cardiac Plug disc coverage of the LAA ostium showed no significant difference in the composite safety endpoint (13% vs. 11%, P=0.64).
Why the study?
Does complete versus incomplete Amplatzer Cardiac Plug disc coverage of the LAA ostium affect safety and efficacy outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous LAA occlusion?
Observational (n=169)
Does complete versus incomplete Amplatzer Cardiac Plug disc coverage of the LAA ostium affect safety and efficacy outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous LAA occlusion?
Absolute Event Rate: 13% vs 11%
p-value: p=0.64
Incomplete coverage of the LAA ostium by the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug disc does not appear to significantly increase the risk of adverse safety or efficacy outcomes compared to complete coverage, suggesting repositioning attempts may not be warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Incomplete ACP coverage showed no safety difference; leaves open whether repositioning is warranted in LAA occlusion.
Wolfrum et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Patients with successful percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion (n=169). Complete coverage of the LAA ostium (group A) vs. Disc prolapsed partially or completely into the LAA-neck (group B) was evaluated on Composite safety endpoint of clinically significant pericardial effusion, device embolization, procedure-related stroke/TIA, major bleeding, or device thrombus (p=0.64). Complete versus incomplete Amplatzer Cardiac Plug disc coverage of the LAA ostium showed no significant difference in the composite safety endpoint (13% vs. 11%, P=0.64).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: