AIMS: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is increasingly used as an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Feasibility and safety of left atrial (LA) catheter ablation (CA) in patients with previously implanted LAAC devices have not been well studied. We report on the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of LA CA in the presence of a previously implanted LAAC device. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective cohort study consecutive patients that underwent LA CA with a previously implanted Watchman device were included. Periprocedural characteristics and long-term clinical follow-up were evaluated. Twenty-three LA CA procedures were performed in 19/162 AF patients with previously implanted Watchman devices [47% male, age 63.9 ± 6.2 years, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.0 (3.0-5.0); HASBLED 3.0 (2.0-4.0); 63% paroxysmal]. Left atrial CA was performed with irrigated radiofrequency (RF; n = 20, 87%) or phased RF (n = 3, 13%) in a mean of 18 months after LAAC implantation (range 4-80 months). Targets of CA consisted of pulmonary vein isolation (n = 19, 83%), superior vena cava isolation (n = 13, 57%), and additional linear lesions (n = 8, 35%). Procedures were carried out under vitamin K antagonist (VKA; n = 6, 26%), non-VKA OAC (NOAC; n = 8, 35%), or single antiplatelet therapy alone (n = 9, 39%). Left atrial CA was successful without any signs of interference from the device. Procedure-related complications were not observed. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 11 patients (58%) had AF recurrence. CONCLUSION: Left atrial CA after LAAC appears to be feasible, effective, and safe in this single centre cohort. Previously implanted Watchman device should not be a reason to relinquish CA in symptomatic AF patients, even in patients on single antiplatelet therapy alone. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is increasingly used as an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Feasibility and safety of left atrial (LA) catheter ablation (CA) in patients with previously implanted LAAC devices have not been well studied. We report on the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of LA CA in the presence of a previously implanted LAAC device. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective cohort study consecutive patients that underwent LA CA with a previously implanted Watchman device were included. Periprocedural characteristics and long-term clinical follow-up were evaluated. Twenty-three LA CA procedures were performed in 19/162 AFpatients with previously implanted Watchman devices [47% male, age 63.9 ± 6.2 years, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.0 (3.0-5.0); HASBLED 3.0 (2.0-4.0); 63% paroxysmal]. Left atrial CA was performed with irrigated radiofrequency (RF; n = 20, 87%) or phased RF (n = 3, 13%) in a mean of 18 months after LAAC implantation (range 4-80 months). Targets of CA consisted of pulmonary vein isolation (n = 19, 83%), superior vena cava isolation (n = 13, 57%), and additional linear lesions (n = 8, 35%). Procedures were carried out under vitamin K antagonist (VKA; n = 6, 26%), non-VKA OAC (NOAC; n = 8, 35%), or single antiplatelet therapy alone (n = 9, 39%). Left atrial CA was successful without any signs of interference from the device. Procedure-related complications were not observed. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 11 patients (58%) had AF recurrence. CONCLUSION: Left atrial CA after LAAC appears to be feasible, effective, and safe in this single centre cohort. Previously implanted Watchman device should not be a reason to relinquish CA in symptomatic AFpatients, even in patients on single antiplatelet therapy alone. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.