Key result
Combined LAAC procedures had similar rates of procedural-related complications compared to single LAAC procedures (12% vs 5%, p=0.1).
Why the study?
Combined percutaneous LAAC alongside another cardiac structural or electrophysiological procedure has emerged as an alternative to staged strategy, but experience with Watchman devices needed description.
Does a combined LAAC procedure compared to a single LAAC procedure maintain safety and efficacy in patients with non-valvular AF?
Cohort (n=157)
Does a combined LAAC procedure compared to a single LAAC procedure maintain safety and efficacy in patients with non-valvular AF?
Combining LAAC with other structural or electrophysiological procedures appears safe and effective compared to isolated LAAC, though larger studies are needed.
Comparable safety with combined LAAC; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Introduction: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative to oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication to long-term OAC. Combined strategy with percutaneous LAAC at the same time of other cardiac structural or electrophysiological procedure has emerged as an alternative to staged strategy. Aim: To describe our experience of combined LAAC procedures using Watchman™ devices. Method: All patients with combined LAAC procedure using Watchman™ (WN) devices performed from 2016-2021 were included. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of periprocedural complications and adverse events during follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint included strokes, systemic embolisms, major bleeding, and cardiovascular death. Results: Since 2016, among the 157 patients who underwent LAAC using WN devices, 16 underwent a combined strategy: 6 TEMVR (37%), 6 typical atrial flutter ablation (37%), 2 LP implantation (13%) and 2 atrial fibrillation ablation (13%). The WN device was successfully implanted in 98% and 100% for single and combined LAAC respectively (p = 0.63). Median follow-up was 13 months (IQR 25/75 3/24) in the whole cohort. Device related complications occurred in 6 out of 141 patients (4%) who underwent single LAAC and in no (0/16) patient in the combined LAAC procedure (p=ns). The procedural related complications did not differ significantly between groups (5% vs 12%, respectively in the single and combined group, p=0.1). Conclusion: Combined procedure combining LAAC using the Watchman™ devices and one other structural or electrophysiological procedure is safe and effective. Larger series are needed to confirm these results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Domain et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation with contraindication to long-term oral anticoagulants (n=157). Combined LAAC procedure vs. Single LAAC procedure was evaluated on Procedural related complications (p=0.1). Combined LAAC procedures had similar rates of procedural-related complications compared to single LAAC procedures (12% vs 5%, p=0.1).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: