BACKGROUND OR PURPOSE: We report our single-center experience with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and primary hemostasis disorders (HD). METHODS: Consecutive patients with primary HD who underwent a percutaneous LAAC were included. Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were prospectively collected and compared with the overall LAAC cohort without HD. RESULTS: Since 2013, among 229 LAAC, 17 patients (7%) had a primary HD: thrombocytopenia (n = 5), myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 6), von Willebrand syndrome (n = 4), type A hemophilia (n = 1), and dysfibrinogenemia (n = 1). The HD population's age ranged from 61 to 87 years, and the median CHA2DS2VASc was 5. Periprocedural plasmatic management was required in 47% of patients. The immediate LAAC implantation success rate was 100%. Patients received a direct oral anticoagulant (DOA) (n = 9), dual antiplatelet (n = 6), aspirin (n = 1), or no therapy (n = 1) during the first six postoperative weeks, followed with single antiplatelet (n = 16) or no therapy (n = 1) during lifelong. After 20 months, the technical success rate and procedural success rate were 100% and 94%. Zero device-/procedure-related complication and only one life-threatening bleeding occurred. Compared to patients without HD (n = 212), a baseline history of bleeding was less frequent (53% vs 91%, p < 0.001), and more patients received a perioperative blood transfusion (47% vs 4%, p < 0.001) in the HD group. The efficacy and safety outcomes did not differ between HD and non-HD cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous LAAC in primary HD carriers appeared as safe and as effective as in overall LAAC population for stroke and bleeding prevention at midterm follow-up. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation and primary hemostasis disorders. The percutaneous LAAC in primary hemostasis disorders and AF carriers requires a multidisciplinary approach. Cardiologist, anesthesiologist, and hematologist discussion is a cornerstone to assess anticoagulant contraindication, LAAC feasibility, periprocedural management, and follow-up (high). This multidisciplinary care is illustrated by the case of a 61-year-old male with hemophilia type A and recurrent hemarthrosis. Pre-LAAC assessment confirmed procedural indication and cactus LAA anatomy (left). After plasmatic management with factor VIII infusion, a WATCHMAN™ no. 21 was successfully implanted (middle). During follow-up, without antithrombotic regime, no ischemic or hemorrhagic complication occurred (right). LAA, left atrial appendage; LAAC, left atrial appendage closure; TEE, transesophageal echocardiography. Percutaneous LAAC in primary HD carriers appeared as safe and as effective as in overall LAAC population for stroke and bleeding prevention at midterm follow-up.
BACKGROUND OR PURPOSE: We report our single-center experience with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and primary hemostasis disorders (HD). METHODS: Consecutive patients with primary HD who underwent a percutaneous LAAC were included. Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were prospectively collected and compared with the overall LAAC cohort without HD. RESULTS: Since 2013, among 229 LAAC, 17 patients (7%) had a primary HD: thrombocytopenia (n = 5), myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 6), von Willebrand syndrome (n = 4), type A hemophilia (n = 1), and dysfibrinogenemia (n = 1). The HD population's age ranged from 61 to 87 years, and the median CHA2DS2VASc was 5. Periprocedural plasmatic management was required in 47% of patients. The immediate LAAC implantation success rate was 100%. Patients received a direct oral anticoagulant (DOA) (n = 9), dual antiplatelet (n = 6), aspirin (n = 1), or no therapy (n = 1) during the first six postoperative weeks, followed with single antiplatelet (n = 16) or no therapy (n = 1) during lifelong. After 20 months, the technical success rate and procedural success rate were 100% and 94%. Zero device-/procedure-related complication and only one life-threatening bleeding occurred. Compared to patients without HD (n = 212), a baseline history of bleeding was less frequent (53% vs 91%, p < 0.001), and more patients received a perioperative blood transfusion (47% vs 4%, p < 0.001) in the HD group. The efficacy and safety outcomes did not differ between HD and non-HD cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous LAAC in primary HD carriers appeared as safe and as effective as in overall LAAC population for stroke and bleeding prevention at midterm follow-up. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation and primary hemostasis disorders. The percutaneous LAAC in primary hemostasis disorders and AF carriers requires a multidisciplinary approach. Cardiologist, anesthesiologist, and hematologist discussion is a cornerstone to assess anticoagulant contraindication, LAAC feasibility, periprocedural management, and follow-up (high). This multidisciplinary care is illustrated by the case of a 61-year-old male with hemophilia type A and recurrent hemarthrosis. Pre-LAAC assessment confirmed procedural indication and cactus LAA anatomy (left). After plasmatic management with factor VIII infusion, a WATCHMAN™ no. 21 was successfully implanted (middle). During follow-up, without antithrombotic regime, no ischemic or hemorrhagic complication occurred (right). LAA, left atrial appendage; LAAC, left atrial appendage closure; TEE, transesophageal echocardiography. Percutaneous LAAC in primary HD carriers appeared as safe and as effective as in overall LAAC population for stroke and bleeding prevention at midterm follow-up.
Authors: Marco Toselli; Davide Bosi; Giorgio Benatti; Emilia Solinas; Maria Alberta Cattabiani; Luigi Vignali Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 2.300