| Literature DB >> 36119731 |
Yuan Bai1, Xuechao Tang2, Xudong Xu1, Xianxian Zhao1, Yawei Xu3, Wei Chen3, Xianyang Zhu4, Qiguang Wang4, Zhihua Han5, Changqian Wang5, Lu He6, Yushun Zhang6, Xin Pan7, Cheng Wang7, Lianglong Chen8, Xuejiang Cen9, Baiming Qu9, Ni Zhu1, Sha Zhang1, Xinmiao Huang1, Yongwen Qin1.
Abstract
Background: Although the implant success rate of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has increased and complications have decreased over time, there are still anatomically and technically complicated cases where novel LAA occluders may simplify the procedure and thus might potentially improve the clinical outcome.Entities:
Keywords: atrial fibrillation; complications; left atrial appendage; percutaneous left atrial appendage closure; stroke
Year: 2022 PMID: 36119731 PMCID: PMC9478548 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.974994
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med ISSN: 2297-055X
FIGURE 1LACbes® left atrial appendage device. (A) Side view of left atrial appendage; (B) lateral view of the occluder; (C) isogenous barb.
Baseline demographic characteristics.
| Variable | |
| Age, years | 68.4 ± 9.2 |
| Age ≥ 75, years | 42/175 (24.0%) |
| Male (%) | 94/175 (53.7%) |
| Ischemic stroke (%) | 72/175 (41.1%) |
| Hemorrhagic stroke (%) | 10/175 (5.7%) |
| TIA (%) | 51/175 (29.1%) |
|
| |
| I | 18/175 (10.3%) |
| II | 126/175 (72.0%) |
| III | 31/175 (17.7%) |
| IV | 0/175 (0.0%) |
| LVEF,% | 62.5 ± 5.5 |
| CHA2DS2 score | 3.0 ± 1.3 |
| HAS-BLED score | 3.2 ± 1.3 |
| CHA2DS2-VASc score | 4.7 ± 1.8 |
| Hypertension (%) | 132/175 (75.4%) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 37/175 (21.1%) |
| Major bleeding | 32/175 (18.3%) |
| Systemic embolism | 5/175 (2.9%) |
| Heart failure | 81/175 (46.3%) |
|
| |
| Chicken wing | 39/175 (22.3%) |
| Windsock | 30/175 (17.1%) |
| Cactus | 61/175 (34.9%) |
| Cauliflower | 45/175 (25.7%) |
TIA, Transient Ischemic Attacks; LVEF, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.
Procedural details and clinical outcomes at follow-up.
| Variable | |
|
| |
| Procedural success (%) | 173/175 (98.9%) |
|
| |
| 18 | 7/173 (4.0%) |
| 20 | 11/173 (6.4%) |
| 22 | 36/173 (20.8%) |
| 24 | 37/173 (21.4%) |
| 26 | 40/173 (23.1%) |
| 28 | 20/173 (11.6%) |
| 30 | 12/173 (6.9%) |
| 32 | 8/173 (4.6%) |
| 34 | 2/173 (1.2%) |
| Death | 0/175 (0%) |
| Clinically non-relevant PEF (%) | 1/175 (0.6%) |
| Clinically relevant PEF (%) | 3/175 (1.7%) |
| Stroke/TIA | 0/175 (0%) |
| Major bleeding | 0/175 (0%) |
| Device embolization | 0/175 (0%) |
| Myocardial infarction | 0/175 (0%) |
| Vascular complication | 0/175 (0%) |
| LAA leak | |
| Residual flow < 1 mm | 6/173 (3.5%) |
| Residual flow 1–3 mm | 18/173 (1.0%) |
| Residual flow > 3 mm | 4/173 (2.3%) |
|
| |
| Number (%) | 173/175 (98.9%) |
| Death (%) | 4/173 (2.3%) |
| Clinically non-relevant pericardial effusion (%) | 1/173 (0.6%) |
| Ischemic stroke/TIA (%) | 1/173 (0.6%) |
| Hemorrhagic stroke (%) | 0/173 (0%) |
| Major bleeding (%) | 2/173 (1.2%) |
| Systemic embolism | 0/173 (0%) |
PEF, pericardial effusion; TIA, Transient Ischemic Attack.
FIGURE 2The largest LACbes device (34 mm) in a shallow left atrial appendage. (A) TEE in 135° view showed a large and shallow LAA; (B) LAA angiography in a RAO 30° + caudal 20° projections showed a “chicken wing” LAA; (C) good sealing after LACbes device implantation under LAA angiography. LAA, left atrial appendage; TEE, transesophageal echocardiography.
FIGURE 3Relative risk reduction (RRR) in annual thromboembolism (A) and major bleeding (B) after left atrial appendage closure with LACbes®.
TEE examination during follow-up.
| Variable | 3 months | 12 months |
| Number (%) | 169/175 (96.6%) | 167/175 (95.4%) |
|
| ||
| Residual flow < 1 mm (%) | 10/169 (5.9%) | 6/167 (3.6%) |
| Residual flow 1–3 mm (%) | 8/169 (4.7%) | 2/167 (1.2%) |
| Residual flow > 3 mm (%) | 2/169 (1.2%) | 1/167 (0.6%) |
| Device-related thrombus (%) | 0/169 (0%) | 2/167 (1.2%) |
PDL, peri-device leak.