Key result
Sinus rhythm during LAAC is linked to higher 30-day pericardial effusion vs AF.
Why the study?
Pericardial effusion/tamponade is a rare but serious complication after left atrial appendage closure, and the impact of underlying heart rhythm on its incidence is unclear.
Does performing LAAC during sinus rhythm increase the risk of pericardial effusion compared to atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing Watchman implantation?
Cohort (n=1,010)
Yes
Does performing LAAC during sinus rhythm increase the risk of pericardial effusion compared to atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing Watchman implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.5% vs 0.2%
p-value: p=0.02
Performing LAAC during sinus rhythm is associated with a higher risk of pericardial effusion requiring intervention compared to atrial fibrillation, suggesting a need for extended echocardiographic follow-up in these patients.
Sinus rhythm at Watchman implant was associated with more intervention-requiring effusions; leaves open whether rhythm predicts complications or warrants modified surveillance.
INTRODUCTION: Pericardial effusion/tamponade (PE/PT) is a rare but serious complication following left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). It may be speculated that LAA contraction during sinus rhythm (SR) exerts mechanical force on the device that eventually leads to PE. We sought to determine the incidence and predictors of PE following LAAC using Watchman with special emphasis on the underlying heart rhythm during implant. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 47 centers in 13 European countries 1,020 patients underwent LAAC and data on baseline rhythm were available from 1,010 patients (mean age 73 ± 9 years, 60% male, median CHA2DS2-VASc = 4). Data were collected via electronic case report forms. A Cox proportional hazard model was calculated adjusting for multiple variables: age, gender, number of recaptures, and device oversizing. During implant, 41% and 59% of patients were in SR and atrial fibrillation (AF), respectively. PE/PT rate was significantly lower in patients implanted during AF at day 30 postimplant (n = 1; 0.2% vs. n = 6; 1.5%; P = 0.02). No PE requiring intervention occurred in the AF group compared to 5 events (1.2%) in the SR group (P = 0.01). While univariate analysis identified SR and gender as predictors for PE/tamponade, multivariate analysis only showed a statistical trend for both variables. CONCLUSION: The overall incidence of PE/PT was very low after LAAC using Watchman. Although SR was not identified as an independent predictor of PE/PT, all events requiring intervention occurred in patients with SR. It may be advisable to perform an extended echocardiographic follow-up in that patient population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schmidt et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure (n=1,010). Sinus rhythm during implant vs. Atrial fibrillation during implant was evaluated on Pericardial effusion/tamponade at 30 days (p=0.02). Sinus rhythm during left atrial appendage closure was associated with a higher 30-day rate of pericardial effusion or tamponade compared to atrial fibrillation (1.5% vs 0.2%; P=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: