Key result
Left atrial appendage closure using the LAmbre device achieved 100% successful sealing at 3 months in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, regardless of prior catheter ablation.
Why the study?
Complex LAA anatomy may preclude LAA closure, prompting evaluation of the adaptable LAmbre device in NVAF patients with or without prior catheter ablation.
Is left atrial appendage closure using the LAmbre device feasible and safe in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, regardless of prior catheter ablation status?
Cohort (n=17)
Is left atrial appendage closure using the LAmbre device feasible and safe in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, regardless of prior catheter ablation status?
Left atrial appendage closure using the LAmbre device is feasible, safe, and achieves high sealing rates in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, regardless of whether they have had prior catheter ablation.
Supports feasibility of LAmbre LAAC in nonvalvular AF with or without prior ablation; hypothesis-generating, requiring confirmation in randomized trials.
Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) has emerged as an alternative therapeutic approach to medical therapy for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, complex LAA anatomy may preclude its use. LAmbre is a new, self-expanding LAA occluder, and is highly adaptable to different LAA morphologies. We explored the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of LAAC using LAmbre device in NVAF patients with or without prior catheter ablation (CA). LAAC using LAmbre device was applied in NVAF patients with (group C) or without (group N) prior CA. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was performed at 3, and 12 months post-LAAC. Among 17 LAAC patients (group C, 6 & group N, 11), 4 cases were implanted with special type devices, 5 were implanted with large devices. Besides one case of cardiac tamponade (N group), there were two minor peri-procedural complications only. Successful sealing of the LAA was documented in all the patients (100%) by TEE both post LAAC and at 3 months. At 3 months, no residual flow was achieved in 11 patients (64.7%); six patients (35.3%) had residual flow < 5 mm. There was no device dislocation or leakage during the mean of 30 months follow up. At 545 days after LAAC, one patient in group C experienced sudden death. Baseline, peri-procedural, and follow-up characteristics were similar between two groups (P > 0.05). LAAC with LAmbre device, subsequent to prior CA for AF, can be performed successfully and safely. The design and distinguishing features of this device could be of help in patients with complex anatomy of LAA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feng et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation (n=17). Left atrial appendage closure using the LAmbre device vs. Patients without prior catheter ablation was evaluated on Successful sealing of the left atrial appendage (p=>0.05). Left atrial appendage closure using the LAmbre device achieved 100% successful sealing at 3 months in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, regardless of prior catheter ablation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: