Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
September 15, 2026European Heart Journal Supplements

TE-ICE guided LAAC shows high procedural success and is linked to ~54% shorter hospital stays.

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Long-term OAC is contraindicated or poorly tolerated in many AF patients due to bleeding risk or comorbidities, making percutaneous LAAC an alternative strategy.

Is percutaneous LAAC safe and effective for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular AF and high hemorrhagic risk, and how does TE-ICE compare to standard TEE guidance?

Population

65 patients with non-valvular AF and high hemorrhagic risk

Comparison

Watchman FLX vs LAmbre devices and TEE vs TE-ICE guidance

Design

Single-center observational study

Follow-up

Three or six months

Key result

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure achieved 100% procedural success and 98% effective closure at 3 months, with TE-ICE guidance reducing hospital length of stay by 54%.

Authors

MSM ScalcioneRFR FinelliFCF Cogliani

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Supports TE-ICE-guided LAAC feasibility in high-bleeding-risk AF; leaves open need for randomized trials before practice change.

Key Points

  • Evaluate procedural success, clinical safety, and outcomes of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using different devices and echocardiographic guidance techniques in patients with atrial fibrillation.
  • Conducted a single-center study between September 2024 and July 2025 involving 65 patients (N=65) with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and elevated hemorrhagic risk.
  • Assessed thromboembolic and bleeding risks via CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, performing closures with Watchman FLX or LAmbre devices guided by standard transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or transesophageal intracardiac echocardiography (TE-ICE).
  • Procedural success reached 100% with a 1.5% rate of major periprocedural complications, and 98% of patients maintained effective appendage closure at three-month follow-up.
  • Zero ischemic strokes, systemic embolic events, or major bleeding episodes occurred at three or six months of follow-up.
  • TE-ICE guidance achieved complete closure, fewer minor peridevice leaks, and a 54% reduction in hospital length of stay compared to standard TEE.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=65)

Multicenter

No

Structured PICO

Is percutaneous LAAC safe and effective for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular AF and high hemorrhagic risk, and how does TE-ICE compare to standard TEE guidance?

P
Population
65 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and high hemorrhagic risk undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage closure, followed for up to 6 months.
E
Exposure
Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using Watchman FLX or LAmbre devices, guided by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or transesophageal intracardiac echocardiography (TE-ICE)
C
Comparator
Standard TEE (for the imaging subgroup comparison)
O
Outcome
Procedural success, periprocedural complications, and effective LAA closure at 3-month follow-upsafety

Percutaneous LAAC is a safe and effective strategy for stroke prevention in AF patients with high bleeding risk, and TE-ICE guidance may further optimize outcomes by reducing hospital length of stay.

Cite This Study

Scalcione et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation with high hemorrhagic risk (n=65). Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) was evaluated on Procedural success. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure achieved 100% procedural success and 98% effective closure at 3 months, with TE-ICE guidance reducing hospital length of stay by 54%.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa90187eed42882c1fc19e5https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suag058.286
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Current Evidence and Procedural Insights2025 · 1 citations
  2. 2Who can benefit from percutaneous left atrial appendage closure? Recent advances2026
  3. 3Should left atrial appendage closure be considered in resistant left atrial appendage thrombus cases? ‘Former Foe, New Ally’2024 · 2 citations
  4. 4Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure Confirmed by Intra-Procedural Transesophageal Echocardiography under Local Anesthesia: Safety and Clinical Efficacy.2021 · 5 citations
  5. 5Current methods of left atrial appendage closure: the non-pharmacological approach for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients2023