Caroline Kleinecke1, Wasim Allakkis2, Eric Buffle3, Xiao-Xia Liu2,4, Yamen Mohrez2, Steffen Gloekler3, Johannes Brachmann2, Steffen Schnupp2, Stephan Achenbach5, Jiangtao Yu6,7. 1. Department of Cardiology, REGIOMED Klinikum Lichtenfels, Lichtenfels, Germany. carolinekleinecke@web.de. 2. Department of Cardiology, REGIOMED Klinikum Coburg, Coburg, Germany. 3. Department of Cardiology, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Department of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Beijing, China. 5. Department of Cardiology, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuernberg, Erlangen, Germany. 6. Department of Cardiology, REGIOMED Klinikum Lichtenfels, Lichtenfels, Germany. 7. Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Koblenz-Montabaur, Koblenz, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is performed either in conscious sedation (CS) or general anesthesia (GA), and limited data exist regarding clinical outcomes for the two approaches. The aim of the study was to analyze the effect of CS versus GA on acute outcomes in a large patient cohort undergoing LAAC with a Watchman occluder. METHODS: A cohort of 521 consecutive patients underwent LAAC with Watchman occluders at two centers (REGIOMED hospitals, Germany) between 2012 and 2018. One site performed 303 consecutive LAAC procedures in GA, and the other site performed 218 consecutive procedures in CS. The safety endpoint was a composite of major periprocedural complications and postoperative pneumonia. The efficacy endpoint was defined as device success. RESULTS: After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 196 (CS) vs. 115 (GA) patients could be compared. In 5 (2.6%) cases CS was converted to GA. The primary safety endpoint (3.5% [CS] vs. 7.0% [GA], p = 0.18) and its components (major periprocedural complications: 2.5% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.73; postoperative pneumonia: 2.6% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.51) did not differ between the groups. Also, device success was comparable (96.9% vs. 93.9%, p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing LAAC with the Watchman device, conscious sedation and general anesthesia showed comparable device success rates and safety outcomes. The type of anesthesia for LAAC may therefore be tailored to patient comorbidities, operator experience, and hospital logistics.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is performed either in conscious sedation (CS) or general anesthesia (GA), and limited data exist regarding clinical outcomes for the two approaches. The aim of the study was to analyze the effect of CS versus GA on acute outcomes in a large patient cohort undergoing LAAC with a Watchman occluder. METHODS: A cohort of 521 consecutive patients underwent LAAC with Watchman occluders at two centers (REGIOMED hospitals, Germany) between 2012 and 2018. One site performed 303 consecutive LAAC procedures in GA, and the other site performed 218 consecutive procedures in CS. The safety endpoint was a composite of major periprocedural complications and postoperative pneumonia. The efficacy endpoint was defined as device success. RESULTS: After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 196 (CS) vs. 115 (GA) patients could be compared. In 5 (2.6%) cases CS was converted to GA. The primary safety endpoint (3.5% [CS] vs. 7.0% [GA], p = 0.18) and its components (major periprocedural complications: 2.5% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.73; postoperative pneumonia: 2.6% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.51) did not differ between the groups. Also, device success was comparable (96.9% vs. 93.9%, p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing LAAC with the Watchman device, conscious sedation and general anesthesia showed comparable device success rates and safety outcomes. The type of anesthesia for LAAC may therefore be tailored to patient comorbidities, operator experience, and hospital logistics.
Entities:
Keywords:
Watchman; atrial fibrillation; conscious sedation; general anesthesia; left atrial appendage closure
Authors: Wassim Mosleh; Jeffrey F Mather; Mostafa R Amer; Brett Hiendlmayr; Francis J Kiernan; Raymond G McKay Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Oliver Husser; Buntaro Fujita; Christian Hengstenberg; Christian Frerker; Andreas Beckmann; Helge Möllmann; Thomas Walther; Raffi Bekeredjian; Michael Böhm; Costanza Pellegrini; Sabine Bleiziffer; Rüdiger Lange; Friedrich Mohr; Christian W Hamm; Timm Bauer; Stephan Ensminger Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-03-26 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Michael Glikson; Rafael Wolff; Gerhard Hindricks; John Mandrola; A John Camm; Gregory Y H Lip; Laurent Fauchier; Tim R Betts; Thorsten Lewalter; Jacqueline Saw; Apostolos Tzikas; Leonid Sternik; Fabian Nietlispach; Sergio Berti; Horst Sievert; Stefan Bertog; Bernhard Meier Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: David R Holmes; Vivek Y Reddy; Zoltan G Turi; Shephal K Doshi; Horst Sievert; Maurice Buchbinder; Christopher M Mullin; Peter Sick Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-08-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Vivek Y Reddy; Shephal K Doshi; Saibal Kar; Douglas N Gibson; Matthew J Price; Kenneth Huber; Rodney P Horton; Maurice Buchbinder; Petr Neuzil; Nicole T Gordon; David R Holmes Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-11-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Lucas V Boersma; Hueseyin Ince; Stephan Kische; Evgeny Pokushalov; Thomas Schmitz; Boris Schmidt; Tommaso Gori; Felix Meincke; Alexey Vladimir Protopopov; Timothy Betts; David Foley; Horst Sievert; Patrizio Mazzone; Tom De Potter; Elisa Vireca; Kenneth Stein; Martin W Bergmann Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2017-05-31 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Johannes Patzelt; Miriam Ulrich; Harry Magunia; Reinhard Sauter; Michal Droppa; Rezo Jorbenadze; Annika S Becker; Tobias Walker; Ralph Stephan von Bardeleben; Christian Grasshoff; Peter Rosenberger; Meinrad Gawaz; Peter Seizer; Harald F Langer Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-12-02 Impact factor: 5.501