Steffen Schnupp1, Xiao-Xia Liu2,3, Eric Buffle4, Steffen Gloekler4,5, Yamen Mohrez1, Mohammad Cheikh-Ibrahim1, Wasim Allakkis1, Johannes Brachmann1, Jai-Wun Park6, Caroline Kleinecke7. 1. Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Coburg, Coburg, Germany. 2. Department of Cardiology, The 4th Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. 3. Department of Cardiology, Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 4. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Department of Cardiology, Schwarzwald-Baar Klinikum, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany. 6. Department of Cardiology, Charité Berlin-University Medicine, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany. 7. Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Lichtenfels, Lichtenfels, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The LAmbre (LifeTech Scientific, Shenzhen, China) is a novel occluder for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation. This study compares late clinical outcomes of LAmbre and the established Amplatzer devices (Abbott, St Paul, MN). METHODS: Between 2012 and 2018, 265 consecutive patients underwent LAAC with LAmbre and Amplatzer devices at a single center. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 40 (LAmbre) vs 107 (Amplatzer) patients were compared by the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all the above-mentioned hazards. RESULTS: The mean age 75.6 ± 8.9 (LAmbre) vs 75.5 ± 9.0 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2 DS2 -VASc score 4.8 ± 1.7 vs 4.8 ± 1.7 and HAS-BLED score 3.1 ± 0.9 vs 3.2 ± 0.8 were similar. After 3.6 ± 1.9 vs 2.5 ± 1.4 years, the clinical efficacy (12/146, 8.2% [LAmbre] vs 28/266, 10.5% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-1.40; P = .34) and safety (5/146, 3.4% vs 14/266, 5.3%; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.14-1.6; P = .22), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (15/146, 10.3% vs 36/266, 13.6%; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.36-1.25; P = .21) were comparable. CONCLUSION: In the presented report, in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the LAmbre offered similar long-term efficacy and safety in comparison to Amplatzer devices.
INTRODUCTION: The LAmbre (LifeTech Scientific, Shenzhen, China) is a novel occluder for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation. This study compares late clinical outcomes of LAmbre and the established Amplatzer devices (Abbott, St Paul, MN). METHODS: Between 2012 and 2018, 265 consecutive patients underwent LAAC with LAmbre and Amplatzer devices at a single center. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 40 (LAmbre) vs 107 (Amplatzer) patients were compared by the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all the above-mentioned hazards. RESULTS: The mean age 75.6 ± 8.9 (LAmbre) vs 75.5 ± 9.0 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2 DS2 -VASc score 4.8 ± 1.7 vs 4.8 ± 1.7 and HAS-BLED score 3.1 ± 0.9 vs 3.2 ± 0.8 were similar. After 3.6 ± 1.9 vs 2.5 ± 1.4 years, the clinical efficacy (12/146, 8.2% [LAmbre] vs 28/266, 10.5% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-1.40; P = .34) and safety (5/146, 3.4% vs 14/266, 5.3%; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.14-1.6; P = .22), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (15/146, 10.3% vs 36/266, 13.6%; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.36-1.25; P = .21) were comparable. CONCLUSION: In the presented report, in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the LAmbre offered similar long-term efficacy and safety in comparison to Amplatzer devices.