Key result
Robotic-assisted epicardial clipping of the left atrial appendage achieved successful exclusion in all completed cases among high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation, with no embolic events at one month.
Why the study?
Most embolic strokes in non-valvular AF arise from the left atrial appendage, making left atrial appendage closure a consideration for patients unable to tolerate anticoagulation medications.
Does robotic surgical epicardial clipping of the left atrial appendage safely and effectively exclude the LAA in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=14)
No
Does robotic surgical epicardial clipping of the left atrial appendage safely and effectively exclude the LAA in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation?
Robotic epicardial clipping of the left atrial appendage is a feasible short-term option for LAA exclusion in high-risk AF patients with contraindications to anticoagulation, though it carries notable surgical risks.
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major modifiable risk factor associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke. It is an independent predictor of mortality and is associated with poorer outcomes among stroke patients. AF affects approximately 2.7 million people with a stroke rate of 3.5% per year. Amongst individuals with non-valvular AF that experience embolic stokes, 90% arise from the left atrial appendage (LAA), and consequently left atrial appendage closure can be considered for patients unable to tolerate anticoagulation medications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nathan et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=14). Robotic-assisted epicardial clipping of the left atrial appendage was evaluated on Successful exclusion of the LAA (residual stump < 1cm). Robotic-assisted epicardial clipping of the left atrial appendage achieved successful exclusion in all completed cases among high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation, with no embolic events at one month.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: