Trending Topic

15 mins

Trending Topic

Developed by Touch
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked

Cardiovascular diseases are the most common cause of mortality and morbidity in adults worldwide.1 Coronary angiography (CAG) is the gold standard method for evaluating atherosclerotic coronary artery disease (CAD).2 It is conventionally performed via the trans-femoral (TF) route. Recently, however, the trans-radial (TR) route has become the preferred way.3 The TR route offers better procedure comfort, shorter hospitalization […]

Peri- and Post-procedural Anticoagulation with Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Devices

Pradyumna Agasthi, Sai Harika Pujari
Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Download as PDF
Published Online: Jun 21st 2023 Heart International. 2023;17(1):54–9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17925/HI.2023.17.1.54
Select a Section…
1

Abstract

Overview

In patients with atrial fibrillation and high stroke risk, anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists is the standard of care for stroke prevention. The benefit of anticoagulation is driven by attenuating the risk of thrombus formation in the left atrial appendage. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion offers an alternative therapeutic strategy for stroke prevention in patients with high bleeding risk or contraindications for long-term anticoagulation. This review of the current literature delineates the standard protocols of peri- and post-procedural anticoagulation/antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage occlusion, the complications of the procedure, and the risk of device-related thrombosis and of incomplete occlusion of the appendage. Finally, the limitations and gaps in the literature are identified.

Keywords

Anticoagulation, antithrombotic therapy, atrial fibrillation, bleeding risk, direct oral anticoagulants, left atrial appendage occlusion, stroke, vitamin K antagonists

2

Article

A significant proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have a high stroke risk are currently being treated with oral anticoagulation (OAC), including direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K inhibitors (VKAs).1 It is well known that the increased risk of thromboembolic stroke in patients with AF is primarily due to left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus formation and consequent embolization.2 About 30–40% of patients with AF and an indication for anticoagulation do not receive anticoagulation due to contraindication such as high bleeding risk, medication intolerance or patient preference.3 Numerous studies have shown that left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), by excluding the LAA from the systemic circulation, effectively decreases AF-related stroke risk.4–11 The WATCHMAN™ (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) device was approved for the treatment of LAAO by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 202012 after two pivotal randomized controlled clinical trials, the PREVAIL trail (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01182441) and the PROTECT AF trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00129545).13–16 However, they recommended anticoagulation after the procedure. The current recommendations indicate the prescription of OAC (VKA or DOAC) plus aspirin for 45 days, followed by dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin (81–325 mg) and clopidogrel (75 mg) for 6 months, and aspirin (81–325 mg) indefinitely after that.17 LAAO can, however, result in certain procedural complications, including air embolism with subsequent stroke, pericardial effusions and device-related thrombus (DRT). DRT after LAAO has been shown to be associated with increased stroke risk.18,19 Anticoagulation regimen after LAAO remains a controversial issue and a challenge as a significant proportion of patients are at high risk of bleeding or intolerant to anticoagulation.

This article aims to comprehensively review the current literature regarding peri- and post-procedural anticoagulation with LAAO devices. The objectives of the review are to understand the indications and contraindications of the procedure; antithrombotic therapy before, during and after implantation of the device in patients with and without contraindications to OAC; the complications of the procedure; DRT; and incomplete occlusion of the appendage. The article also reviews the limitations of the current data and gaps in the literature.

Peri-procedural anticoagulation strategies

Thrombus in the LAA is the primary source of cardioembolic phenomena in patients with AF. Ninety percent of atrial thrombus cases were shown to be in the LAA in patients with non-rheumatic AF, as shown by the review by Blackshear and Odell.4 Anticoagulation in AF is recommended based on the CHA2DS2-VASc score. However, some patients have contraindications to long-term anticoagulation, including thrombocytopaenia, recurrent bleeding from various sites (gastrointestinal, respiratory or genitourinary), prior severe bleeding, recurrent falls or medication non-compliance. Hence, the concept of closure of the LAA and of possibly removing the need for anticoagulation has been proposed and has been around since 1948.20 However, there is still controversy around the optimal post-interventional regimen of antithrombotic drugs. Endovascular devices for LAAO include the WATCHMAN, Amplatzer™ (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) and WaveCrest® (Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA) devices. The LARIAT system (SentreHeart Inc, Redwood City, CA, USA) is a percutaneous device used ‘off label’ in the USA.17 For catheter-based LAAO, a thrombus visualized either by a transoesophageal echocardiogram or coronary computed tomography angiography scan is considered a contraindication.21 Antithrombotic drugs such as unfractionated hepwarin guided by partial thromboplastin time or oral anticoagulants (e.g. DOACs or VKAs) for ≥4 weeks are recommended in such situations.21 LAAO is performed after the documented resolution of the thrombus.

During device implantation, unfractionated heparin is commonly used among intravenous anticoagulation agents. In the PROTECT AF trial, an international normalized ratio of <2.0 was recommended.16 After the transseptal puncture, weight-adjusted heparin (70–100 IU/kg) was administered, and an activated clotting time of >200 s was maintained during the procedure, while aspirin (81–325 mg) was started at least a day before the procedure.16,22 However, some operators might be comfortable performing the procedure while the patient is on VKA (with INR>2.0) or on a DOAC.

The PROTECT AF16 and PREVAIL13 studies were both conducted on patients with AF, who received warfarin plus low-dose aspirin for 45 days, followed by low-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel 75 mg (DAPT) for 6 months and by aspirin 325 mg daily lifelong after that. Both studies showed that the efficacy of LAAO was non-inferior to anticoagulation alone.

A meta-analysis of both trials confirmed these results.23 Bleeding complications occurred in about 1.2% of the patients on aspirin and OAC during evaluation 45 days after the implant.21,23 Subsequently, 0.6% of these patients had a bleeding event when they received DAPT in the following study period.24 In patients with contraindications to OAC, decisions regarding anticoagulation after the procedure and stroke prophylaxis can be particularly challenging.

Another remarkable study is the EWOLUTION trial, which reported outcomes at 1 and 2 years (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01972282).25 In this trial, 72% of patients could not adapt to harsh anticoagulation and hence were switched to DAPT, single antiplatelet therapy or no medication. A total of 66% were changed to single antiplatelet or no therapy after 3–6 months; by the end of the study, 84% of the active patients were only on single antiplatelet therapy or none. Despite these switches, the outcomes of the WATCHMAN implant were favourable. Patients with the LAAO device had consistently low rates of non-procedural bleeding and stroke.

There are relatively fewer studies on surgical LAAO. In the LAAOS III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01561651), patients with AF were randomized to either undergo LAAO at the time of cardiac surgery for another indication or to not undergo the procedure and continue with anticoagulation.26 Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 4.8% of participants in the occlusion group and 7.0% of participants in the control group; moreover, there was not a significant difference in the incidence of peri-operative bleeding, heart failure or death between groups. Another study investigated antithrombotic therapy after the LAAO procedure.27 It showed an association between adding aspirin to anticoagulation and an increased risk of bleeding; anticoagulation alone had a similar reduction in major adverse events but no increase in ischaemic events. Patients who were discharged on DAPT did not differ significantly in terms of risk of adverse events compared with aspirin and warfarin after adjustment of risk profiles.

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines from 2016 make a Class IIb recommendation for LAAO for stroke prevention in patients with AF who have contraindications for long-term anticoagulation.28 The 2020 update of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) expert consensus statements assert that LAAO is acceptable in patients with contraindications to anticoagulation.21 Published in 2019, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) focused update of 2014 guidelines also provided a Class IIb recommendation for percutaneous LAAO for patients with AF with increased risk of stroke and who have contraindications to long-term anticoagulation.11,29 This update also gave a Class IIb recommendation for surgical LAAO for patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery.

The recommendations are detailed as follows (Table 1). The EHRA/EAPCI consensus update provided five clinical situations and discussed indications for LAAO in each.21,30 They recommend that LAAO “may be done’’ instead of OAC in patients who are eligible for OAC and require stroke prevention if they refuse OAC. They also recommend LAAO in patients with AF with absolute contraindications for long-term OAC with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 (3 in women) who can be given 2–4 weeks of single antiaggregant. The contraindications that are defined in the consensus update are the risk of major bleeding (especially disabling or life-threatening bleeding due to an untreatable source of intracranial/intraspinal bleeding or severe gastrointestinal, pulmonary, or urogenital source of bleeding that cannot be corrected) and severe side effects under VKA and/or contraindications to the novel OACs. A risk-benefit analysis needs to be performed between OAC and LAAO in patients with an elevated bleeding risk while on long-term OAC, and decisions should be made accordingly. They also give a weak recommendation to consider LAAO in the same clinical situation. In patients unwilling to take OAC even after extensive patient education, they weakly recommend considering LAAO and discussing it as a therapeutic alternative after maximum attempts to resolve the reasons/issues for non-compliance. The AHA/ACC/HRS 2019 guideline updates weakly recommend percutaneous LAAO in patients with AF at increased risk of stroke with contraindications to long-term OAC.11 They also weakly recommend surgical LAAO in patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery, as a component of an overall heart team approach in managing AF.

Based on the PROTECT-AF study, it is recommended to prescribe anticoagulation (DOAC or VKA) plus aspirin for 45 days, followed by DAPT (aspirin plus clopidogrel) for 6 months and aspirin daily thereafter.31 However, DAPT (aspirin and clopidogrel) for 6 months after the procedure is recommended for individuals with absolute contraindications to OAC, as shown in the ASAP study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00851578),32 or for a shorter period of 1–3 months for individuals who are at high risk of bleeding.33 As many patients with AF have concomitant atherosclerotic vascular disease, LAAO may allow us to use an ideal regimen for patients with coronary artery disease with DAPT or a low-dose DOAC and single antiplatelet therapy.34,35 The WOEST trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00769938) observed excess mortality in patients with AF undergoing percutaneous cardiovascular intervention who were managed with triple therapy of DAPT and OAC, compared with those undergoing dual therapy of DOAC and clopidogrel.36

A summary of the clinical scenarios and guidance regarding OAC/antithrombotic therapies post-LAAO are provided in Figure 1.

The safety and complication numbers of the WATCHMAN device have improved significantly over time due to increased experience and improved equipment. A registry with more than 38,000 WATCHMAN implantations shows a procedural success rate of 98.3%.37 A study compared the outcomes between the PROTECT AF study and a non-randomized Continued Access Protocol registry of patients undergoing WATCHMAN implantations after the randomized trial and found a decline in procedure- or device-related safety in 7 days in the non-randomized registry compared with the randomized trial.38

Potential complications can arise from the procedure or due to the device. Procedure-related death was reported to occur in 0.19% of cases and cardiac arrest in 0.24% of cases by the National Cardiovascular Data LAAO Registry.37 Major vascular complications occur peri-procedurally relatively more often than other complications, accounting for 0.15% according to the registry; this may be due to vein puncture or transseptal puncture, for example. The incidence of pericardial effusion has also decreased over time due to increased operator experience, with the most recent evidence indicating a tamponade incidence rate of about 1.3%.39,40 Concerning peri-procedural stroke events, ischaemic strokes accounted for 0.12% of cases and haemorrhagic accounted for 0.01% of cases.37 Strokes can be caused by device-related leaks, DRT and air embolism. Device embolization occurred in 0.07% of the patients included in the registry.37 Device erosion is a rare but devastating complication.

DRT aetiology is likely multifactorial and differs between patients.41 It is more common in patients with reduced left ventricular systolic function, larger LAAs, and higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores.19 It can occur late following LAAO, and a large number of patients recur and have it after successful resolution.42,43 DRT is clinically significant because its association with thromboembolic events is well established. Several studies have shown an increased incidence of stroke, systemic embolism, and death among patients with DRT.19,42,44,45 Several risk factors have been proposed to predict DRT;44,46 however, emerging concepts in DRT also include the possible role of the flow dynamics on thrombus formation and early detection of DRT precursors using cardiac computed tomography.47 Treatment is usually 6 weeks of OAC, and the extension of the treatment depends on bleeding risk and other contributing factors such as persistent device leak or spontaneous contrast in the left atrium.48,49 However, DRT is challenging in clinical practice as there are still several management issues, including the fact that most patients are not suitable for prolonged or intensified anticoagulation, the persistence of DRT in 20–25% of patients despite anticoagulation treatment, high recurrence rates and uncertainty of the management of different DRTs, especially with highly mobile or/and large thrombi.43–45

Peridevice leak (PDL) incidence varies widely, as there is a lack of consensus on leak detection and classification methods.47 The cutoff of what is considered to be a PDL differs widely between studies. There are several limitations to studies assessing PDL effect on outcomes, such as the large sample size requirement (as the rates of stroke or systemic embolization post-LAAO are low), the variability in the definition of significant and nonsignificant leaks (e.g. >3 mm, >5 mm), the variation in the classification used in clinical practice, and the current treatment for large leaks being anticoagulation, which confounds the assessment of the impact of PDL.50,51 The management of PDL remains uncertain as the current literature is limited. In smaller PDLs, watchful waiting has been suggested.24,52,53 Closure of the PDLs has been studied and showed complete or near-complete obliteration with low complication rates; however, the long-term efficacy is currently unknown.51,54–57

While there have been several observational studies58,59 targeting patients with a high thromboembolic risk but contraindications to OAC or systemic anticoagulation, no randomized data exist for such population. Nonetheless, the EHRA/EAPCI consensus statement indicates that LAAO is safe and effective despite the absence of even temporary OAC.21 DAPT is usually recommended for 1–6 months followed by lifelong antiplatelet therapy. Management usually involves 6 weeks of anticoagulation but can be extended depending on bleeding risk and other factors, such as PDL or spontaneous contrast in the left atrium.48,49

The limitations of the study are largely due to the limitations of the trials described. The big trials, PROTECT AF and PREVAIL, had small sample sizes (707 and 407, respectively).13,16 Reviewers for the FDA found PROTECT AF’s handling of haemorrhagic strokes to be inconsistent.60 In addition, a second co-primary efficacy endpoint of systemic embolism or ischaemic stroke occurring more than 7 days following surgery were included in the PREVAIL trial.16 Two meta-analyses of PROTECT AF and PREVAIL showed a similar pattern of outcomes to the original studies, with greater rates of ischaemic stroke and lower rates of haemorrhagic stroke and cardiovascular/unexplained mortality.15,23 From the current studies, there are comparisons with VKAs but not with oral anticoagulants and LAAO.

As previously mentioned, there are no trials with a large sample exploring the efficacy of LAAO; furthermore, no trials directly compare DAPT and OAC or the different devices. The ANDES trial (Short-term anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy for preventing device thrombosis following LAAO; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03568890) will compare short-term novel OAC with antiplatelet therapy for patients after LAAO.61 The STROKECLOSE trial (Prevention of stroke by LAAO in AF patients after intracerebral hemorrhage; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02830152) will compare LAAO with Amplatzer Amulet™ (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) or medical therapy in patients with previous intracerebral haemorrhage.62 The SAFE-LAAC trial (Optimal antiplatelet therapy following LAAO; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03445949) will compare 30 days versus six months of DAPT after LAAO.63 The CLOSURE-AF trial (LAAO in patients with AF compared to medical therapy; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03463317) will compare LAAO versus medical therapy in patients with a high risk of bleeding.64 The ASAP-TOO trial (Assessment of the WATCHMAN™ device in patients unsuitable for OAC; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02928497) will compare patients with contraindications to anticoagulation after LAAO with WATCHMAN receiving single and DAPT.65 All on-going trials are listed in Table 2.

Conclusions

Percutaneous LAAO is increasingly being used for stroke prevention in patients with AF, especially in patients with high bleeding risk and with contraindications to anticoagulation. On-going trials will potentially help clarify the appropriate antithrombotic therapy post-LAAO and help reduce post-procedural complications.

3

References

List View
Grid View
1
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Burlacu A, Genovesi S, Artene B, Covic A. ‘Will the king ever be dethroned?’ The relationship and the future of oral anticoagulation therapy versus LAA closure devices. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2021;19:1–4. DOI: 10.1080/14779072.2021.1850267.

2
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: The Framingham study. Stroke. 1991;22:983–8. DOI: 10.1161/01.str.22.8.983.

3
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Kakkar AK, Mueller I, Bassand J-P, et al. Risk profiles and antithrombotic treatment of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke: Perspectives from the international, observational, prospective GARFIELD Registry. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:e63479. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063479.

4
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Blackshear JL, Odell JA. Appendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillation. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61:755–9. DOI: 10.1016/0003-4975(95)00887-X.

5
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Stoddard MF, Dawkins PR, Prince CR, Ammash NM. Left atrial appendage thrombus is not uncommon in patients with acute atrial fibrillation and a recent embolic event: A transesophageal echocardiographics tudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:452–9. DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(94)00396-8.

6
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Jain AK, Gallagher S. Percutaneous occlusion of the left atrial appendage in non-valvular atrial fibrillation for the prevention of thromboembolism: NICE guidance. Heart. 2011;97:762–5. DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2010.208223.

7
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Bartus K, Bednarek J, Myc J, et al. Feasibility of closed-chest ligation of the left atrial appendage in humans. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8:188–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.10.040.

8
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Fountain R, Holmes DR, Hodgson PK, et al. Potential applicability and utilization of left atrial appendage occlusion devices in patients with atrial fibrillation. Am Heart J. 2006;152:720–3. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.05.001.

9
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Block PC, Burstein S, Casale PN, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion for patients in atrial fibrillation suboptimal for warfarin therapy: 5-year results of the PLAATO (Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Transcatheter Occlusion) Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:594–600. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.05.005.

10
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Bartus K, Han FT, Bednarek J, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation using the LARIAT device in patients with atrial fibrillation: Initial clinical experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:108–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.06.046.

11
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H, et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:104–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.01.011.

12
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure device with delivery system and WATCHMAN FLX left atrial appendage closure device with delivery system – P130013/S035. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/recently-approved-devices/watchman-left-atrial-appendage-closure-device-delivery-system-and-watchman-flx-left-atrial-appendage (Date last accessed: 16 June 2023).

13
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Holmes DR, Kar S, Price MJ, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: The PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.029.

14
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Reddy VY, Sievert H, Halperin J, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:1988–98. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.15192.

15
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Reddy VY, Doshi SK, Kar S, et al. 5-year outcomes after left atrial appendage closure: From the PREVAIL and PROTECT AF trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2964–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.021.

16
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Turi ZG, et al. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: A randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2009;374:534–42. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61343-X.

17
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Ziyad M Hijazi M, MPH F, FACC M, et al. Atrial fibrillation: Left atrial appendage occlusion. UpToDate. 2021. Available at: www.uptodate.com/contents/atrial-fibrillation-left-atrial-appendage-occlusion (Date last accessed: 15 June 2023).

18
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Aminian A, Schmidt B, Mazzone P, et al. Incidence, characterization, and clinical impact of device-related thrombus following left atrial appendage occlusion in the prospective global AMPLATZER amulet observational study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:1003–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.02.003.

19
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Dukkipati SR, Kar S, Holmes DR, et al. Device-related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure. Circulation. 2018;138:874–85. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035090.

20
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Whitlock RP, Healey JS, Holmes DR. Left atrial appendage occlusion debate revisited. Circulation. 2015;131:756–61. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.008840.

21
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Glikson M, Wolff R, Hindricks G, et al. EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – An update. EuroIntervention. 2020;15:1133–80. DOI: 10.4244/EIJY19M08_01.

22
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Fountain RB, Holmes DR, Chandrasekaran K, et al. The PROTECT AF (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) trial. Am Heart J. 2006;151:956–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.02.005.

23
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Holmes DR, Doshi SK, Kar S, et al. Left atrial appendage closure as an alternative to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: A patient-level meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:2614–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.025.

24
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Viles-Gonzalez JF, Kar S, Douglas P, et al. The clinical impact of incomplete left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman Device in patients with atrial fibrillation: A PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:923–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.028.

25
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Boersma LV, Ince H, Kische S, et al. Evaluating real-world clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation patients receiving the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure technology: Final 2-year outcome data of the EWOLUTION trial focusing on history of stroke and hemorrhage. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019;12:e006841. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCEP.118.006841.

26
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Whitlock RP, Belley-Cote EP, Paparella D, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion during cardiac surgery to prevent stroke. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:2081–91. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2101897.

27
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Freeman JV, Higgins AY, Wang Y, et al. Antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79:1785–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.047.

28
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, et al. ESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2893–962. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw210.

29
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 January CT, Wann LS, Alpert JS, et al. AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:e1–76. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.03.022.

30
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Glikson M, Wolff R, Hindricks G, et al. EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – An update. Europace. 2020;22:184. DOI: 10.1093/europace/euz258.

31
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Alli O, Doshi S, Kar S, et al. Quality of life assessment in the randomized PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial of patients at risk for stroke with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1790–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.061.

32
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Reddy VY, Möbius-Winkler S, Miller MA, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device in patients with a contraindication for oral anticoagulation: The ASAP study (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2551–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.03.035.

33
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Saw J, Holmes DR, Cavalcante JL, et al. SCAI/HRS expert consensus statement on Transcatheter left atrial appendage closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16:1384–400. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2023.01.011.

34
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Gibson CM, Mehran R, Bode C, et al. Prevention of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2423–34. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611594.

35
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Bosch J, et al. Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1319–30. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1709118.

36
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Dewilde WJM, Oirbans T, Verheugt FWA, et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;381:1107–15. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62177-1.

37
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Freeman JV, Varosy P, Price MJ, et al. The NCDR Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:1503–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.040.

38
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Reddy VY, Holmes D, Doshi SK, et al. Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: Results from the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with AF (PROTECT AF) clinical trial and the Continued Access Registry. Circulation. 2011;123:417–24. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.976449.

39
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Reddy VY, Gibson DN, Kar S, et al. Experience with left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:253–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.010.

40
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Price MJ, Valderrábano M, Zimmerman S, et al. Periprocedural pericardial effusion complicating transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion: A report from the NCDR LAAO Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15:e011718. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.011718.

41
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Tandar A, Nielsen J, Whisenant BK. Left atrial appendage closure review: Addressing unmet needs of AF mediated stroke prevention with evolving science. Structural Heart. 2021;5:3–10. DOI: 10.1080/24748706.2020.1834173.

42
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Alkhouli M, Busu T, Shah K, et al. Incidence and clinical impact of device-related thrombus following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: A meta-analysis. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018;4:1629–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.09.007.

43
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Asmarats L, Cruz-González I, Nombela-Franco L, et al. Recurrence of device-related thrombus after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. Circulation. 2019;140:1441–3. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040860.

44
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Simard T, Jung RG, Lehenbauer K, et al. Predictors of device-related thrombus following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;78:297–313. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.098.

45
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Sedaghat A, Vij V, Al-Kassou B, et al. Device-related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure: Data on thrombus characteristics, treatment strategies, and clinical outcomes from the EUROC-DRT-Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:e010195. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.010195.

46
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Simard TJ, Hibbert B, Alkhouli MA, et al. Device-related thrombus following left atrial appendage occlusion. EuroIntervention. 2022;18:224–32. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01010.

47
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Alkhouli M, Ellis CR, Daniels M, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion: Current advances and remaining challenges. JACC: Advances. 2022;1:100136. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2022.100136.

48
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Saw J, Nielsen-Kudsk JE, Bergmann M, et al. Antithrombotic therapy and device-related thrombosis following endovascular left atrial appendage closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:1067–76. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.11.001.

49
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Asmarats L, O’Hara G, Champagne J, et al. Short-term oral anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy following transcatheter left atrial appendage closure. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:e009039. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009039.

50
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Raphael CE, Friedman PA, Saw J, et al. Residual leaks following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: Assessment and management implications. EuroIntervention. 2017;13:1218–25. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00469.

51
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Alkhouli M, Chaker Z, Clemetson E, et al. Incidence, characteristics and management of persistent peri-device flow after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion. Structural Heart. 2019;3:491–8. DOI: 10.1080/24748706.2019.1663381.

52
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Kar S, Doshi SK, Sadhu A, et al. Primary outcome evaluation of a next-generation left atrial appendage closure device. Circulation. 2021;143:1754–62. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.050117.

53
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Afzal MR, Gabriels JK, Jackson GG, et al. Temporal changes and clinical implications of delayed peridevice leak following left atrial appendage closure. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2022;8:15–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.06.018.

54
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Alkhouli M. Management of peridevice leak after LAAO: Coils, plugs, occluders, or better understanding of the problem? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:320–2. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.10.051.

55
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Killu AM, Gbolabo Adeola O, Della Rocca DG, et al. Leak closure following left atrial appendage exclusion procedures: A multicenter registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;99:1867–76. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.30139.

56
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Piayda K, Sievert K, Della Rocca DG, et al. Safety and feasibility of peri-device leakage closure after LAAO: An international, multicentre collaborative study. EuroIntervention. 2021;17:e1033–40. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00286.

57
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Della Rocca DG, Horton RP, Di Biase L, et al. First experience of transcatheter leak occlusion with detachable coils following left atrial appendage closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:306–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.10.022.

58
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Sharma D. Left atrial appendage closure in patients with Contraindications to oral anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;2190–2. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.02.053.

59
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 Boersma LV, Ince H, Kische S, et al. Efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure with WATCHMAN in patients with or without Contraindication to oral anticoagulation: 1-year follow-up outcome data of the EWOLUTION trial. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14:1302–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.05.038.

60
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 FDA. FDA Executive Summary, 2014. DOI: 10.1002/yd.20082.

61
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 ClinicalTrials.gov. Short-Term Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy for Preventing Device Thrombosis Following Left Atrial Appendage Closure (ANDES). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03568890. Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03568890 (Date last accessed: 7 June 2023).

62
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 ClinicalTrials.gov. Prevention of Stroke by Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Atrial Fibrillation Patients After Intracerebral Hemorrhage. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02830152. Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02830152 (Date last accessed: 7 June 2023).

63
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 ClinicalTrials.gov. Optimal Antiplatelet Therapy Following Left Atrial Appendage Closure (SAFE-LAAC). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03445949. Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03445949 (Date last accessed: 7 June 2023).

64
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 ClinicalTrials.gov. Left Atrial Appendage CLOSURE in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Compared to Medical Therapy (CLOSURE-AF). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03463317. Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03463317 (Date last accessed: 7 June 2023).

65
Copy DOIDOI Copied
Visit DOI Link

 ClinicalTrials.gov. Assessment of the WATCHMAN™ Device in Patients Unsuitable for Oral Anticoagulation (ASAP-TOO). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02928497 . Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02928497 (Date last accessed: 7 June 2023).

4

Article Information

Disclosure

Pradyumna Agasthi and Sai Harika Pujari have no financial or non-financial relationships or activities to declare in relation to this article.

Compliance With Ethics

This article involves a review of the literature and did not involve any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Review Process

Double-blind peer review.

Authorship

The named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship of this manuscript, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given final approval for the version to be published.

Correspondence

Pradyumna Agasthi, Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Sai Harika Pujari- 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA; pradyumna_agasthi@hotmail.com

Support

No funding was received in the publication of this article.

Access

This article is freely accessible at touchCARDIOLOGY.com © Touch Medical Media 2023

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the writing of this article.

Received

2022-10-24

5

Further Resources

Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Download as PDF
Close Popup