Literature DB >> 25060026

Impact of Watchman and Amplatzer devices on left atrial appendage adjacent structures and healing response in a canine model.

Saibal Kar1, Dongming Hou2, Russell Jones3, Dennis Werner2, Lynne Swanson2, Brian Tischler2, Kenneth Stein2, Barbara Huibregtse2, Elena Ladich3, Robert Kutys3, Renu Virmani4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed for conducting a comparative evaluation of the healing response after Watchman (WM) (Boston Scientific, Plymouth, Minnesota) and Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) (St. Jude Medical, Minneapolis, Minnesota) in a canine left atrial appendage (LAA) model.
BACKGROUND: There is no direct comparison of the WM and ACP device in pre-clinical or clinical settings.
METHODS: The LAA from canine (n = 6) and human (n = 19) hearts were compared to determine the feasibility of the canine model and its relevance to clinical applications. Subsequently, implantation of WM and ACP in the canine LAA was performed (n = 3 per device) to evaluate the device conformation to the LA anatomy as well as the healing response at 28 days.
RESULTS: The LAA is a variable tubular structure in both canine and human hearts. Gross examination showed that the WM was properly seated inside the LAA ostium, in comparison to the ACP where the disk was outside of the LAA orifice and extended to the edge of the left superior pulmonary vein and mitral valve. At 28 days, complete neo-endocardial coverage of the WM was observed; however, the ACP showed an incomplete covering on the disk surface especially at the lower edge and end-screw hub regions.
CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in conformation of LAA surrounding structures with variable healing response between WM and ACP after LAA closure in the canine model. WM does not obstruct or impact the LAA adjacent structures, resulting in a favorable surface recovery. In comparison, the disk of ACP could potentially jeopardize LAA neighboring structures and leads to delayed healing.
Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Amplatzer Cardiac Plug; Watchman; left atrial appendage; percutaneous occluson device

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25060026     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.03.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1936-8798            Impact factor:   11.195


  18 in total

1.  Five years of keeping a watch on the left atrial appendage-how has the WATCHMAN fared?

Authors:  Mohammad-Ali Jazayeri; Venkat Vuddanda; Valay Parikh; Madhav Lavu; Donita Atkins; Y Madhu Reddy; Jayant Nath; Dhanunjaya R Lakkireddy
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Assessment of the healing process after percutaneous implantation of a cardiovascular device: a systematic review.

Authors:  Elodie Perdreau; Zakaria Jalal; Richard D Walton; Jérôme Naulin; Julie Magat; Bruno Quesson; Hubert Cochet; Olivier Bernus; Jean-Benoît Thambo
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 2.357

3.  Cardiac CT angiography for device surveillance after endovascular left atrial appendage closure.

Authors:  Jacqueline Saw; Peter Fahmy; Peggy DeJong; Mathieu Lempereur; Ryan Spencer; Michael Tsang; Kenneth Gin; John Jue; John Mayo; Patrick McLaughlin; Savvas Nicolaou
Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-04-06       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  Predictors of thrombus formation after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using the WATCHMAN device.

Authors:  Hidehiro Kaneko; Michael Neuss; Jens Weissenborn; Christian Butter
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  Endothelium-Mimicking Nanomatrix Coating to Enhance Endothelialization after Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device Implantation.

Authors:  Patrick T J Hwang; Jennifer A Sherwood; Reid C Millican; Pratheek S Bobba; Tyler O Lynd; Joseph N Garner; Brigitta C Brott; Dongming Hou; Ho-Wook Jun
Journal:  ACS Appl Bio Mater       Date:  2021-06-01

Review 6.  Left Atrial Appendage Ligation And Exclusion Technology In The Incubator.

Authors:  Faisal F Syed; Amit Noheria; Christopher V DeSimone; Samuel J Asirvatham
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2015-08-31

7.  Reduced plasma level of basic fibroblast growth factor is associated with incomplete device endothelialization at six months following left atrial appendage closure.

Authors:  Jing Xu; Xin Gong; Chuanzhi Chen; Jun Xing; Qi Wang; Weifeng Shen; Qi Zhang
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2021-05-16       Impact factor: 2.298

8.  Changes in left atrial appendage orifice following percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using three-dimensional echocardiography.

Authors:  Xochitl A Ortiz-Leon; Edith L Posada-Martinez; Alda Bregasi; Wanwen Chen; Ian Crandall; Jason Pereira; Kamil F Faridi; Joseph G Akar; Ben A Lin; Robert L McNamara; James V Freeman; Jeptha Curtis; Jose A Arias-Godinez; Lissa Sugeng
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2022-01-22       Impact factor: 2.357

9.  How to walk the tightrope between harm and protection in selecting the optimal antiplatelet treatment strategy after transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion.

Authors:  Radosław Pracoń; Marcin Demkow
Journal:  Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 1.426

10.  --LAA Occluder View for post-implantation Evaluation (LOVE)--standardized imaging proposal evaluating implanted left atrial appendage occlusion devices by cardiac computed tomography.

Authors:  Michael Behnes; Ibrahim Akin; Benjamin Sartorius; Christian Fastner; Ibrahim El-Battrawy; Martin Borggrefe; Holger Haubenreisser; Mathias Meyer; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 1.930

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.