Search

Background: Device-related thrombosis (DRT) is a common finding after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and is associated with worse outcomes. As women are underrepresented in clinical studies, further understanding of sex differences in DRT patients is warranted., Methods and Results: This sub-analysis from the EUROC-DRT-registry compromises 176 patients with diagnosis of DRT after LAAC. Women, who accounted for 34.7% (61/176) of patients, were older (78.0 ± 6.7 vs. 74.9 ± 9.1 years, p = .06) with lower rates of comorbidities. While DRT was detected significantly later in women (173 ± 267 vs. 127 ± 192 days, p = .01), anticoagulation therapy was escalated similarly, mainly with initiation of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC), vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or heparin. DRT resolution was achieved in 67.5% (27/40) of women and in 75.0% (54/72) of men (p = .40). In the remaining cases, an intensification/switch of anticoagulation was conducted in 50.% (9/18) of men and in 41.7% (5/12) of women. Final resolution was achieved in 72.5% (29/40) cases in women, and in 81.9% (59/72) cases in men (p = .24). Women were followed-up for a similar time as men (779 ± 520 vs. 908 ± 687 days, p = .51). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no difference in mortality rates in women (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 1.73, 95%-Confidence interval [95%-CI]: .68-4.37, p = .25) and no differences in stroke (HR: .83, 95%-CI: .30-2.32, p = .72) within 2 years after LAAC., Conclusion: Evaluation of risk factors and outcome revealed no differences between men and women, with DRT in women being diagnosed significantly later. Women should be monitored closely to assess for DRT formation/resolution. Treatment strategies appear to be equally effective., (© 2024 The Author(s). Echocardiography published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Device-related thrombus (DRT) after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is associated with adverse outcomes, i.e. ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (SE). Data on predictors of stroke/SE in the context of DRT are limited., Aims: This study aimed to identify predisposing factors for stroke/SE in DRT patients. In addition, the temporal connection of stroke/SE to DRT diagnosis was analyzed., Methods: The EUROC-DRT registry included 176 patients, in whom DRT after LAAC were diagnosed. Patients with symptomatic DRT, defined as stroke/SE in the context of DRT diagnosis, were compared against patients with non-symptomatic DRT. Baseline characteristics, anti-thrombotic regimens, device position, and timing of stroke/SE were compared., Results: Stroke/SE occurred in 25/176 (14.2%) patients diagnosed with DRT (symptomatic DRT). Stroke/SE occurred after a median of 198 days (IQR 37-558) after LAAC. In 45.8% stroke/SE occurred within one month before/after DRT diagnosis (DRT-related stroke). Patients with symptomatic DRT had lower left ventricular ejection fractions (50.0 ± 9.1% vs. 54.2 ± 11.0%, p = 0.03) and higher rates of non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (84.0% vs. 64.9%, p = 0.06). Other baseline parameters and device positions were not different. Most ischemic events occurred among patients with single antiplatelet therapy (50%), however, stroke/SE was also observed under dual antiplatelet therapy (25%) or oral anticoagulation (20%)., Conclusion: Stroke/SE are documented in 14.2% and occur both in close temporal relation to the DRT finding and chronologically independently therefrom. Identification of risk factors remains cumbersome, putting all DRT patients at substantial risk for stroke/SE. Further studies are necessary to minimize the risk of DRT and ischemic events., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Data on Device-related Thrombus (DRT) after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remain scarce. This study aimed to investigate risk factors for DRT from centers reporting to the EUROC-DRT registry., Methods: We included 537 patients (112 with DRT and 425 without DRT) who had undergone LAAC between 12/2008 and 04/2019. Baseline and implantation characteristics, anti-thrombotic treatment and clinical outcomes were compared between both groups in uni- and multivariate analyses. Additional propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to focus on the role of implantation characteristics., Results: Patients with DRT showed higher rates of previous stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (49.1% vs. 34.7%, p < 0.01), spontaneous echocardiographic contrast (SEC) (44.9% vs. 27.7%, p < 0.01) and lower left atrial appendage (LAA) peak emptying velocity (35.4 ± 18.5 vs. 42.4 ± 18.0 cm/s, p = 0.02). Occluders implanted in DRT patients were larger (25.5 ± 3.8 vs. 24.6 ± 3.5 mm, p = 0.03) and implanted deeper in the LAA (mean depth: 7.6 ± 4.7 vs. 5.7 ± 4.7 mm, p < 0.01). Coverage of the appendage ostium was achieved less often in DRT patients (69.5% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.01), while DRT patients were less frequently on oral anticoagulation (7.1% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis identified age, prior stroke/TIA and SEC as independent risk factors for DRT. After PSM, implantation depth was found to be predictive. Rates of stroke/TIA were higher in DRT patients (13.5% vs. 3.8%, Hazard Ratio: 4.21 [95%-confidence interval: 1.88-9.49], p < 0.01)., Conclusions: DRT after LAAC is associated with adverse outcome and appears to be of multifactorial origin, depending on patient characteristics, anticoagulation regimen and device position., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.)

Objectives: To investigate periprocedural and long-term outcome of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using Amplatzer occluders with respect to individual pre-procedural stroke risk., Background: LAAC is a proven strategy for prevention from stroke and bleeding in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation not amenable to oral anticoagulation. Whether individual pre-procedural stroke risk may affect procedural and long-term clinical outcome after LAAC is unclear., Methods: Multicenter study of consecutive patients who underwent Amplatzer-LAAC. Using pre-procedural CHADS 2 score, outcomes were compared between a low (0-2 points) and a high stroke risk group (3-6 points)., Results: Five hundred consecutive patients (73.9 ± 10.1 years) who underwent Amplatzer-LAAC. Two hundred and forty eight had preprocedural CHADS 2 score ≤ 2 points (low-risk group) and the remaining 252 patients had 3-6 points (high-risk group). Periprocedural complication rates (6.0% vs. 5.6%, p = .85), procedural success (LAAC without major periprocedural or device-related complications or major para-device leaks: 89.4% vs. 87.9%, p = .74), and 30-day-mortality (2.4% vs. 2.6%, p = .77) were comparable. After 1,346 patient-years (PY), the long-term composite efficacy endpoint (stroke, systemic embolism, cardiovascular, and unexplained death) was reached in 23/653 (3.5/100 PY) versus 52/693 (7.5/100 PY); HR = 2.13; 95%-CI, 1.28-3.65, p = .002) with stroke rates 67% and 68% lower than anticipated by preprocedural CHADS 2 score. Combined safety endpoint (major periprocedural complications and major, life-threatening or fatal bleedings) occurred in 22/653 (3.4/100 PY) versus 28/693 (4.0/100 PY); HR = 1.20; 95%-CI, 0.66-2.20, p = .52)., Conclusions: Compared with patients at low risk of stroke, LAAC with Amplatzer devices is associated with similar safety and efficacy in high-risk patients in our study., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Left atrial appendage closure is an established therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. Although device-related thrombosis (DRT) is relatively rare, it is potentially linked to adverse events. As data on DRT characteristics, outcome, and treatment regimen are scarce, we aimed to assess these questions in a multicenter approach., Methods: One hundred fifty-six patients with the diagnosis of DRT after left atrial appendage closure were included in the multinational EUROC-DRT registry. Baseline characteristics included clinical and echocardiographic data. After inclusion, all patients underwent further clinical and echocardiographic follow-up to assess DRT dynamics, treatment success, and outcome., Results: DRT was detected after a median of 93 days (interquartile range, 54–161 days) with 17.9% being detected >6 months after left atrial appendage closure. Patients with DRT were at high ischemic and bleeding risk (CHA2DS2-VASc 4.5±1.7, HAS-BLED 3.3±1.2) and had nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (67.3%), previous stroke (53.8%), and spontaneous echo contrast (50.6%). The initial treatment regimens showed comparable resolution rates (antiplatelet monotherapy: 57.1%, dual antiplatelet therapy: 85.7%, vitamin K antagonists: 80.0%, novel oral anticoagulants: 75.0%, and heparin: 68.6%). After intensification or switch of treatment, complete DRT resolution was achieved in 79.5% of patients. Two-year follow-up revealed a high risk of mortality (20.0%) and ischemic stroke (13.8%) in patients with DRT. Patients with incomplete DRT resolution showed numerically higher stroke rates and increased mortality rates (stroke: 17.6% versus 12.3%, P=0.29; mortality: 31.3% versus 13.1%, P=0.05)., Conclusions: A substantial proportion of DRT is detected >6 months after left atrial appendage closure, highlighting the need for imaging follow-up. Patients with DRT appear to be at a high risk for stroke and mortality. While DRT resolution was achieved in most patients, incomplete DRT resolution appeared to identify patients at even higher risk. Optimal DRT diagnostic criteria and treatment regimens are warranted.

Aims: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with AMPLATZER occluders is used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Net clinical benefit compared to medical therapy has not been tested. The aim of this study was to test whether long-term clinical outcome after LAAC with AMPLATZER occluders may be similar to medical therapy., Methods and Results: Five hundred consecutive patients who underwent LAAC with AMPLATZER occluders were compared to 500 patients with medical therapy by propensity score matching. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death. The primary safety endpoint consisted of major procedural adverse events and major bleedings. For assessment of net clinical benefit, all of the above-mentioned hazards were combined. After 2,645 patient-years at a mean follow-up of 2.7±1.5 years, the primary efficacy endpoint was reached by 75/1,342, 5.6% in the LAAC group versus 102/1,303, 7.8% per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.95, p=0.026). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 48/1,342, 3.6% versus 60/1,303, 4.6% per 100 patient-years (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.55-1.18, p=0.21), and the combined hazard endpoint in 109/1,342, 8.1% versus 142/1,303, 10.9% per 100 patient-years (HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.60-0.97, p=0.018). Patients receiving LAAC demonstrated lower rates of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (111/1,342, 8.3% vs 151/1,303, 11.6% per 100 patient-years [HR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56-0.92, p=0.005] and 54/1,342, 4.0% vs 84/1,303, 6.5% per 100 patient-years [HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.89, p=0.007])., Conclusions: LAAC with AMPLATZER devices showed a net clinical benefit over medical therapy by superior efficacy, similar safety and a benefit in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.