Search

Introduction: The LARIAT epicardial suture snaring device has been fraught with technical challenges and procedural complications. Over time, technique modification and improved operator experience have helped overcome many of these challenges. METHODS AND RESULTS: Studies reporting left atrial appendage epicardial closure over a 12-year period from 2009 to 2020 were evaluated. The primary efficacy outcome evaluated was left atrial appendage closure with residual flow ≤1 mm. Safety outcomes evaluated were periprocedural and long term complications after device placement. Nine studies consisting of 1430 patients were included in this analysis, of which 1386 (97%) underwent successful device placement. The mean age was 69.3 years, with a mean CHADS 2 -VASC score of 3.78. Primary efficacy end point was achieved in 95.8% patients immediately after device placement, and in 92.8% patients on long term follow-up. Early procedural complications consisted of pericardial effusion 5.6%, cardiac perforation 2.7%, pericarditis 2.6%, and need for open heart surgery 1.5%. Long term complications consisted of all-cause mortality 2.3%, stroke 1.5%, and left atrial appendage thrombus 2.3%. Reduced complications were noted using micropuncture needles (2.20% vs. 10.14%; p < .0001), a longer duration pericardial drainage, and use of anti-inflammatory medications (1.58% vs. 8.4%). Oral anticoagulation use decreased from 44.7% to 22.9% post device implantation, and to 8.5% on last clinical follow up., Conclusions: The LARIAT device is effective in epicardial closure of the left atrial appendage. Improvement in device techniques such as use of micropuncture needle, prophylactic colchicine, and maintenance of a pericardial drain have helped improve safety over time., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has proven to be an effective alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation in the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. In a minority of patients, inadequate seal may result in persistent peridevice flow and inability of the appendage to fully thrombose, thereby representing a potential source for thromboembolism., Objective: The purpose of this study was to study the use of endovascular coiling of the appendage to address persistent peridevice leak in patients undergoing LAAC with the Watchman device., Methods: This is a retrospective single-center analysis involving patients who underwent placement of a LAAC device and returned for endovascular coiling to address persistent device leak between 2018 and 2020. Baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, and follow-up echocardiograms were analyzed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of this technique., Results: Patients (N = 20) were identified with a mean leak size of 3.8 ± 1.3 mm (range 2.5-7 mm), all of whom had a non-thrombosed appendage. Acute procedural success was achieved in 95% of patients. Complete or significant reduction in flow beyond the LAAC device was achieved in 61% and 33% of patients, respectively. The 1 procedure-related adverse event was a pericardial effusion before coil deployment, requiring percutaneous drainage., Conclusion: The clinical impact of residual peridevice leak post-Watchman implantation is a matter of continuing investigation. However, appendage coiling represents a new therapeutic tool to address this potential source for thromboembolism. Further studies should address the clinical impact of this technique, including the safety of discontinuing anticoagulation after successful coiling., (Copyright © 2021 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Electrophysiological procedures such as epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation and Lariat left atrial appendage ligation that involve the epicardial space are typically associated with significant postoperative pain due to mechanical irritation and associated inflammation. There is an unmet need for an effective pain management strategy in this group of patients. We studied how this impacts patient comfort and duration of hospitalization and other associated comorbidities related to pericardial access., Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study including 104 patients who underwent epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation and Lariat left atrial appendage exclusion. We compared 53 patients who received postprocedural intrapericardial liposomal bupivacaine (LB)+oral colchicine (LB group) and 51 patients who received colchicine alone (non-LB group) between January 2015 and March 2018., Results: LB was associated with significant lowering of median pain scale at 6 hours (1.0 [0-2.0] versus 8.0 [6.0-8.0], P <0.001), 12 hours (1.0 [1.0-2.0] versus 6.0 [5.0-6.0], P <0.001), and up to 48 hours postprocedure. Incidence of acute severe pericarditis delayed pericardial effusion and gastrointestinal adverse effects were similar in both groups. Median length of stay was significantly lower in LB group (2.0 versus 3.0; adjusted linear coefficient -1 [CI -1.3 to -0.6], P <0.001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated similar favorable outcomes in both Lariat and epicardial ventricular tachycardia ablation groups., Conclusions: Addition of intrapericardial postprocedural LB to oral colchicine in patients undergoing epicardial access during ventricular tachycardia ablation or Lariat procedure is associated with significantly decreased numeric pain score up to 48 hours compared with colchicine alone. It is also associated with significantly shorter length of hospital stay without an increase in the risk of adverse events.

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the safety and feasibility of percutaneous retrieval of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices with an endoscopic grasping tool., Background: Transcatheter LAAC is a mechanical stroke prevention strategy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) who are poor candidates for long-term oral anticoagulation. However, these LAAC devices can be inadvertently released into an unfavorable location, the device might migrate to a different (unfavorable) position within the left atrial appendage (LAA) or may embolize from the heart into the aorta. In such instances, it can be challenging to remove the LAAC device without open cardiac or vascular surgery., Methods: This study reports on a series of 4 cases in which an endoscopic grasping tool (Raptor) designed for gastrointestinal applications was used to percutaneously (non-surgically) remove LAAC devices that were either malpositioned or embolized., Results: LAAC devices were safely and non-surgically removed using the grasping device in all 4 cases (Amulet: 1, Watchman: 3). Devices were successfully retrieved from the left inferior pulmonary vein, descending aorta, aortic arch, and the edge of the LAA ostium. Time of device retrieval post-LAAC implantation ranged from 24 h to 1 year. Special precautionary measures, such as preemptive pericardial access, embolic protection devices, and intraprocedural imaging, were used in 2 cases., Conclusions: This case series demonstrated that the endoscopic grasping tool appeared to be safe and useful to percutaneously retrieve LAAC devices., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (pLAAC) emerged as an option for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation ineligible for long-term anticoagulation. Real-world data on pLAAC's in-hospital and 30-day readmission measures are limited., Objective: We sought to report the nationwide incidence of the above outcomes using 2016 claims data., Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample for in-hospital outcomes and Nationwide Readmissions Database for readmissions. We identified hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and pLAAC procedure by using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes and compared the outcomes mentioned above between the endocardial and epicardial cohorts. Statistical analyses were performed using R 3.3.2., Results: Among 5480 pLAAC procedures (endocardial: 5145; epicardial: 335), the in-hospital mortality was 0.3%. Endocardial left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) had lower complications (8.5% vs 25.4%; P < .001) and shorter length of stay median [interquartile range] 1 [1-1] day vs 2 [1-3] days; P < .001) but higher hospitalization cost (24.13 [18.45-30.17] × 1000 dollars vs 21.21 [14.03-27.86] × 1000 dollars; P = .016). The most common complications include pericardial (endocardial vs epicardial: 3% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and renal failure (1.4% vs 6.0%; P = .004). Epicardial LAAC had higher 30-day unplanned readmissions (19.5% vs 8.3%; P = .001), with the most common reason being pericarditis and/or effusion (33.9%)., Conclusion: Endocardial LAAC had lower complications and 30-day readmissions but higher hospitalization cost. Although epicardial LAAC showed higher complications, given recent improvements in its technique, and postprocedural care demonstrated a significant reduction in pericardial complications, more contemporary data comparing these outcomes are needed., (Copyright © 2019 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with LARIAT has emerged as one of the alternatives to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Our aim was to study long-term outcomes in patients undergoing LARIAT procedure., Methods: We analyzed patients screened for LARIAT device in four centers between December 2009 and June 2012. Out of these, patients who didn't undergo LAAC with the LARIAT device due to unfavorable LAA morphology and other preprocedural contraindications were included in control group. We analyzed thromboembolism, bleeding events, and mortality between LAA and control group., Results: About 153 patients were screened. Out of these, 108 (70.6%) patients underwent LARIAT placement (LAA arm) and 45 (29.4%) excluded patients were included in control arm. There were no differences in CHADS 2 and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score. Mean HAS-BLED score was significantly higher in the LARIAT group (3.5 ± 1.06 vs 3.09 ± 1.22, P = .04). Mean follow-up time (in years) was 6.56 ± 0.84 in LAA and 6.5 ± 1.26 in control arm. During follow-up period, the LARIAT group was associated with significantly less thromboembolic events (1.9% vs 24%, P < .001), bleeding events (9.2% vs 24.4%, P = .03), and mortality (5.6% vs 20%, P = .01) as compared with the control group., Conclusions: Long-term data from routine clinical practice from our study suggests that LAA exclusion with LARIAT device is an effective treatment in management of nonvalvular AF patients with high risk of stroke, bleeding, and mortality. Further randomized trials, such as aMAZE, will provide more insight in this expanding field., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure has evolved as an effective strategy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation who are considered suitable for oral anticoagulation. There is strong evidence based on randomized clinical trials with 1 percutaneous device, as well as a large registry experience with several devices, regarding the safety and efficacy of this strategy. In addition, there is encouraging data regarding the effect of epicardial LAA closure on decreasing arrhythmia burden and improvements in systemic homeostasis by neurohormonal modulation. However, there are several unresolved issues regarding optimal patient selection, device selection, management of periprocedural complications including device-related thrombus, residual leaks, and pericarditis. In this review, we summarize the rationale, evidence, optimal patient selection, and common challenges encountered with mechanical LAA exclusion., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (PoAF), a common complication of cardiac surgery, contributes significantly to morbidity, mortality, and increasing healthcare costs. Despite advances in surgical and medical management, the overall incidence of PoAF has not changed significantly, partly because of the limited understanding of mechanisms underlying acute surgery-related factors, such as myocardial injury, inflammation, sympathetic activation, and oxidative stress, which play an important role in the initiation of PoAF, whereas a preexisting atrial substrate appears to be more important in the maintenance of this dysrhythmia. Thus, in a majority of patients, PoAF becomes a manifestation of an underlying arrhythmogenic substrate that is unmasked after acute surgical stress. As such, the ability to identify which patients have this proarrhythmic substrate and are, therefore, at high risk for developing AF postoperatively, is important for the improved selection for prophylactic interventions, closer monitoring for complications, and establishing the probability of AF in the long term. This review highlights the role of the underlying substrate in promoting PoAF, proposed mechanisms, and the potential role of serum biomarkers to identify patients at risk for PoAF.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) complicating cardiac surgery continues to be a major problem that increases the postoperative risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and costs and can affect long-term survival. The incidence of AF after surgery has not significantly changed over the last two decades, despite improvement in medical and surgical techniques. The mechanism and pathophysiology underlying postoperative AF (PoAF) is incompletely understood and results from a combination of acute and chronic factors, superimposed on an underlying abnormal atrial substrate with increased interstitial fibrosis. Several anti-arrhythmic and non-anti-arrhythmic medications have been used for the prevention of PoAF, but the effectiveness of these strategies has been limited due to a poor understanding of the basis for the increased susceptibility of the atria to AF in the postoperative setting. In this review, we summarize the pathophysiology underlying the development of PoAF and evidence behind pharmacological approaches used for its prevention in the postoperative setting.