Key result
LAA closure device embolization occurs in ~1% of cases with no meaningful differences across devices.
Why the study?
Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure is safe with low complication rates, but evidence on device embolization prevalence and management is limited.
This review highlights that LAA occluder embolization is a rare (~1%) but serious complication, emphasizing meticulous procedural planning and recommending percutaneous retrieval as the initial management strategy.
Device embolization demands individualized retrieval planning in LAA closure; leaves open optimal device selection and prevention strategies.
Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure has emerged as a promising procedure for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation with a very high or prohibitive bleeding risk. It is a safe technique, with a low rate of complications; however, complications, such as device embolization can be potentially serious, and decision-making as well as selecting the most appropriate strategy may be challenging due to the limited evidence available in this context. This review provides an overview of the most critical aspects of left atrial appendage closure device embolization focusing on its prevalence, management strategies, and treatment options.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martín-Arena et al. (2025) conducted a review in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Left atrial appendage closure devices was evaluated on Device embolization. The overall rate of left atrial appendage closure device embolization is approximately 1%, with no consistent, clinically meaningful differences among the various devices.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: