Shaojie Chen1, K R Julian Chun2, Stefano Bordignon3, Felix K Weise3, Takahiko Nagase3, Laura Perrotta3, Fabrizio Bologna3, Boris Schmidt4. 1. Frankfurt Academy For Arrhythmias (FAFA), Cardioangiologisches Centrum Bethanien (CCB) Frankfurt am Main, Medizinische Klinik III, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Electronic address: drsjchen@126.com. 2. Frankfurt Academy For Arrhythmias (FAFA), Cardioangiologisches Centrum Bethanien (CCB) Frankfurt am Main, Medizinische Klinik III, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Electronic address: j.chun@ccb.de. 3. Frankfurt Academy For Arrhythmias (FAFA), Cardioangiologisches Centrum Bethanien (CCB) Frankfurt am Main, Medizinische Klinik III, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 4. Frankfurt Academy For Arrhythmias (FAFA), Cardioangiologisches Centrum Bethanien (CCB) Frankfurt am Main, Medizinische Klinik III, Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Electronic address: b.schmidt@ccb.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has been suggested as an alternative to anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The present study aimed to compare a LAmbre LAA occluder system [Lifetech Scientific (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Shenzhen, China] with the most investigated Amulet (St. Jude Medical Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA) and Watchman (Boston Scientific, Plymouth, MN, USA) devices in terms of peri-procedural and short-term outcomes. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study. RESULTS: Overall, 140 patients (50 female, mean age 76.2±8.4 years) were consecutively enrolled. Mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.8±1.5, and mean HAS-BLED score was 3.9±1.1. Baseline clinical characteristics were comparable between the three groups (LAmbre, n=30; Amulet, n=74; Watchman, n=36); the LAmbre group had significantly more patients with complicated LAA morphology (p=0.006). The implant success rate was 100% in LAmbre, 99% in Amulet, and 100% in Watchman group (p=0.638). The number of device repositions was not significantly different between groups (0.7±1.1 in LAmbre, 1.0±2.0 in Amulet, and 1.4±1.8 in Watchman group, p=0.345). Fluoroscopic and procedural times were similar between groups. Major peri-procedural adverse events did not differ between groups (0% vs. 0% vs. 2.8%, p=0.233). Six months' follow-up showed good device stability and patients' clinical condition in all groups. CONCLUSION: LAmbre, Amulet, and Watchman exhibit remarkable implant success rate, low risk of peri-procedural adverse events, and good clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has been suggested as an alternative to anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). The present study aimed to compare a LAmbre LAA occluder system [Lifetech Scientific (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Shenzhen, China] with the most investigated Amulet (St. Jude Medical Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA) and Watchman (Boston Scientific, Plymouth, MN, USA) devices in terms of peri-procedural and short-term outcomes. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study. RESULTS: Overall, 140 patients (50 female, mean age 76.2±8.4 years) were consecutively enrolled. Mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.8±1.5, and mean HAS-BLED score was 3.9±1.1. Baseline clinical characteristics were comparable between the three groups (LAmbre, n=30; Amulet, n=74; Watchman, n=36); the LAmbre group had significantly more patients with complicated LAA morphology (p=0.006). The implant success rate was 100% in LAmbre, 99% in Amulet, and 100% in Watchman group (p=0.638). The number of device repositions was not significantly different between groups (0.7±1.1 in LAmbre, 1.0±2.0 in Amulet, and 1.4±1.8 in Watchman group, p=0.345). Fluoroscopic and procedural times were similar between groups. Major peri-procedural adverse events did not differ between groups (0% vs. 0% vs. 2.8%, p=0.233). Six months' follow-up showed good device stability and patients' clinical condition in all groups. CONCLUSION: LAmbre, Amulet, and Watchman exhibit remarkable implant success rate, low risk of peri-procedural adverse events, and good clinical outcomes.
Authors: Roberto Galea; Federico De Marco; Adel Aminian; Nicolas Meneveau; Frederic Anselme; Christoph Gräni; Adrian T Huber; Emmanuel Teiger; Xavier Iriart; Marco Angelillis; Nicolas Brugger; Alessandro Spirito; Noé Corpataux; Anna Franzone; Pascal Vranckx; Urs Fischer; Giovanni Pedrazzini; Francesco Bedogni; Stephan Windecker; Lorenz Räber; Marco Valgimigli Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Muhammad Ali; Angelos G Rigopoulos; Mammad Mammadov; Abdelrahman Torky; Andrea Auer; Marios Matiakis; Elena Abate; Constantinos Bakogiannis; Stergios Tzikas; Boris Bigalke; Daniel Sedding; Michel Noutsias Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Mohammed Saad; Osama Risha; Makoto Sano; Thomas Fink; Christian-Hendrik Heeger; Julia Vogler; Vanessa Sciacca; Charlotte Eitel; Thomas Stiermaier; Alexander Joost; Ahmad Keelani; Georg Fuernau; Roza Meyer-Saraei; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Ingo Eitel; Roland Richard Tilz Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2021-10-19