Search

Atrial fibrillation is a major risk factor for stroke. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has emerged as an alternative to anticoagulation for patients with high risk of bleeding. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with adverse events after cardiac procedures. We sought to compare procedural and hospital outcomes in patients who underwent LAAC with and without DM. The Nationwide Inpatient Database was queried for patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent LAAC between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. The primary outcome was all adverse events that included in-hospital death, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, stroke, pericardial effusion, pericardial tamponade, pericardiocentesis, pericardial window, and postprocedural hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion. Analysis included 62,220 patients who underwent LAAC from 2016 to 2019; 34.9% of patients had DM. There was a slight increase in the percentage of patients who underwent LAAC who had DM during the study period, from 29.92% to 34.93%. In unadjusted and adjusted analysis, there was no significant difference in all adverse events between patients with and without DM who underwent LAAC (9.18% vs 8.77%, respectively, adjusted p = 0.63), and no difference in length of stay. Patients with DM have higher risk of acute kidney injury (3.75 vs 1.96%, p <0.001). This nationwide retrospective study demonstrates that DM is not associated with an increase in adverse event rates in patients who underwent LAAC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative to chronic oral anticoagulation to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The Amulet IDE trial (Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE Trial) was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the dual-seal mechanism of the Amulet LAA occluder compared with the Watchman device., Methods: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo percutaneous implantation of a LAA occluder with the Amulet occluder or Watchman device. The primary end points included safety (composite of procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months), effectiveness (composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months), and the rate of LAA occlusion at 45 days. Prespecified secondary end points included a composite of all stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death at 18 months, major bleeding at 18 months, and superiority test of the 3 primary end points., Results: A total of 1878 patients were enrolled. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary safety end point (14.5% versus 14.7%; difference=-0.14 [95% CI, -3.42 to 3.13]; P <0.001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding and all-cause death were similar between groups (10.6% versus 10.0% and 3.9% versus 5.1%, respectively). Procedure-related complications were higher for the Amulet occluder (4.5% versus 2.5%), largely related to more frequent pericardial effusion and device embolization. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary effectiveness end point (2.8% versus 2.8%; difference=0.00 [95% CI, -1.55 to 1.55]; P <0.001 for noninferiority), and the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death (5.6% versus 7.7%, difference=-2.12 [95% CI, -4.45 to 0.21]; P <0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of major bleeding was similar between groups (11.6% versus 12.3%; difference=-0.71 [95% CI, -3.72 to 2.31]; P =0.32 for superiority). LAA occlusion was higher for the Amulet occluder than for the Watchman device (98.9% versus 96.8%; difference=2.03 [95% CI, 0.41-3.66]; P <0.001 for noninferiority; P =0.003 for superiority)., Conclusions: The Amulet occluder was noninferior for safety and effectiveness of stroke prevention for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation compared with the Watchman device and superior for LAA occlusion. Procedure-related complications were higher with the Amulet occluder and decreased with operator experience. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02879448.

Background: In patients with atrial fibrillation, left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device prevents thromboembolism from the left atrial appendage; however, thrombus may form on the left atrial face of the device, and then potentially embolize. Herein, we studied the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcome of device-related thrombus (DRT) using a large series of clinical trial cohorts of patients undergoing Watchman implantation., Methods: We studied the device arms of 4 prospective Food and Drug Administration trials: PROTECT-AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) (n=463); PREVAIL (Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) (n=269); CAP (Continued Access to PROTECT AF registry) (n=566); and CAP2 (Continued Access to PREVAIL registry) (n=578). Surveillance transesophageal echocardiographs were performed at 45 days and 12 months in all patients, and also at 6 months in the randomized control trials. We assessed both the incidence of DRT during these transesophageal echocardiographs (and other unscheduled transesophageal echocardiographs), and clinical outcomes of postprocedure stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and adjusted for CHA 2 DS 2 -VASC and HAS-BLED scores., Results: Of 1739 patients who received an implant (7159 patient-years follow-up; CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc=4.0), DRT was seen in 65 patients (3.74%). The rates of SSE with and without DRT were 7.46 and 1.78 per 100 patient-years (adjusted rate ratio, 3.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.18-5.79; P<0.001), and ischemic SSE rates were 6.28 and 1.65 per 100 patient-years (adjusted rate ratio, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.90-5.45, P<0.001). On multivariable modeling analysis, the predictors of DRT were as follows: history of transient ischemic attack or stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.26-4.25; P=0.007), permanent atrial fibrillation (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.19-4.20; P=0.012); vascular disease (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.08-3.91; P=0.028); left atrial appendage diameter (OR, 1.06 per mm increase; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12; P=0.019); left ventricular ejection fraction (OR, 0.96 per 1% increase; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P=0.009). DRT and SSE both occurred in 17 of 65 patients (26.2%). Of the 19 SSE events in these patients with DRT, 9 of 19 (47.4%) and 12 of 19 (63.2%) occurred within 1 and 6 months of DRT detection. Conversely, after left atrial appendage closure, most SSEs (123/142, 86.62%) occurred in patients without DRT., Conclusions: After left atrial appendage closure with Watchman, DRT (≈3.7%) is not frequent but, when present, is associated with a higher rate of stroke and systemic embolism.

Background: The risk for stroke after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an important concern. Identification of predictors for stroke is likely to be a critical factor aiding patient selection and management as TAVR use becomes widespread., Methods and Results: Patients enrolled in the CoreValve US Extreme Risk and High Risk Pivotal Trials or Continued Access Study treated with the self-expanding CoreValve bioprosthesis were included in this analysis. The 1-year stroke rate after TAVR was 8.4%. Analysis of the stroke hazard rate identified an early phase (0-10 days; 4.1% of strokes) and a late phase (11-365 days; 4.3% of strokes). Baseline predictors of early stroke included National Institutes of Health stroke scale score >0, prior stroke, prior transient ischemic attack, peripheral vascular disease, absence of prior coronary artery bypass surgery, angina, low body mass index (<21 kg/m(2)), and falls within the past 6 months. Significant procedural predictors were total time in the catheterization laboratory or operating room, delivery catheter in the body time, rapid pacing used during valvuloplasty, and repositioning of the prosthesis. Predictors of stroke between 11 and 365 days were small body surface area, severe aortic calcification, and falls within the past 6 months. There were no significant imaging predictors of early or late stroke., Conclusions: Predictors of early stroke after TAVR included clinical and procedural factors; predictors of later stroke were limited to patient but not anatomic characteristics. These findings indicate that further refinement of imaging to identify anatomic factors predisposing to embolization may help improve stroke prediction in patients undergoing TAVR., Clinical Trial Registrations: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01240902, NCT01531374., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high surgical risk, less is known about comparative outcomes among patients with aortic stenosis who are at intermediate surgical risk.Methods: We evaluated the clinical outcomes in intermediate-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in a randomized trial comparing TAVR (performed with the use of a self-expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic-valve replacement. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or disabling stroke at 24 months in patients undergoing attempted aortic-valve replacement. We used Bayesian analytical methods (with a margin of 0.07) to evaluate the noninferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement.Results: A total of 1746 patients underwent randomization at 87 centers. Of these patients, 1660 underwent an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 79.8±6.2 years, and all were at intermediate risk for surgery (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality, 4.5±1.6%). At 24 months, the estimated incidence of the primary end point was 12.6% in the TAVR group and 14.0% in the surgery group (95% credible interval [Bayesian analysis] for difference, -5.2 to 2.3%; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Surgery was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements, whereas TAVR had higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation and need for pacemaker implantation. TAVR resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic-valve areas than surgery. Structural valve deterioration at 24 months did not occur in either group.Conclusions: TAVR was a noninferior alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, with a different pattern of adverse events associated with each procedure. (Funded by Medtronic; SURTAVI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01586910 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery, self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved 2-year survival compared with surgery.Objectives: This study sought to determine whether this clinical benefit was sustained over time.Methods: Patients with severe aortic stenosis deemed at increased risk for surgery by a multidisciplinary heart team were randomized 1:1 to TAVR or open surgical valve replacement (SAVR). Three-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were obtained in those patients with an attempted procedure.Results: A total of 797 patients underwent randomization at 45 U.S. centers; 750 patients underwent an attempted procedure. Three-year all-cause mortality or stroke was significantly lower in TAVR patients (37.3% vs. 46.7% in SAVR; p = 0.006). Adverse clinical outcome components were also reduced in TAVR patients compared with SAVR patients, including all-cause mortality (32.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively; p = 0.068), all stroke (12.6% vs. 19.0%, respectively; p = 0.034), and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (40.2% vs. 47.9%, respectively; p = 0.025). At 3 years aortic valve hemodynamics were better with TAVR patients (mean aortic valve gradient 7.62 ± 3.57 mm Hg vs. 11.40 ± 6.81 mm Hg in SAVR; p < 0.001), although moderate or severe residual aortic regurgitation was higher in TAVR patients (6.8% vs. 0.0% in SAVR; p < 0.001). There was no clinical evidence of valve thrombosis in either group.Conclusions: Patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased risk for surgery had improved 3-year clinical outcomes after TAVR compared with surgery. Aortic valve hemodynamics were more favorable in TAVR patients without differences in structural valve deterioration. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve(®) System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]