TY - JOUR
T1 - Endocardial (Watchman) vs epicardial (Lariat) left atrial appendage exclusion devices
T2 - Understanding the differences in the location and type of leaks and their clinical implications
AU - Pillarisetti, Jayasree
AU - Reddy, Yeruva Madhu
AU - Gunda, Sampath
AU - Swarup, Vijay
AU - Lee, Randall
AU - Rasekh, Abdi
AU - Horton, Rodney
AU - Massumi, Ali
AU - Cheng, Jie
AU - Bartus, Krzystzof
AU - Badhwar, Nitish
AU - Han, Frederick
AU - Atkins, Donita
AU - Bommana, Sudharani
AU - Earnest, Matthew
AU - Nath, Jayant
AU - Ferrell, Ryan
AU - Bormann, Steven
AU - Dawn, Buddhadeb
AU - Di Biase, Luigi
AU - Mansour, Moussa
AU - Natale, Andrea
AU - Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Heart Rhythm Society.
PY - 2015/7/1
Y1 - 2015/7/1
N2 - Background Watchman and Lariat left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion devices are associated with LAA leaks postdeployment. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence, characteristics, and clinical significance of these leaks. Methods We performed a multicenter prospective observational study of all patients who underwent LAA closure. Baseline, procedural, and imaging variables along with LAA occlusion rates at 30-90 days and 1-year postprocedure were compared. Results A total of 478 patients (219 with the Watchman device and 259 with the Lariat device) with successful implants were included. Patients in the Lariat group had a higher CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age >74 years, diabetes, stroke) score and a larger left atrium and LAA. A total of 79 patients (17%) had a detectable leak at 1 year. More patients in the Watchman group had a leak compared with those in the Lariat group (46 [21%] vs 33 [14%]; P =.019). All the leaks were eccentric (edge effect) in the Watchman group and concentric (gunny sack effect) in the Lariat group. The size of the leak was larger in the Watchman group than in the Lariat group (3.10 ± 1.5 mm vs 2.15 ± 1.3 mm; P =.001). The Watchman group had 1 device embolization requiring surgery and 2 pericardial effusions requiring pericardiocentesis. In the Lariat group, 4 patients had cardiac tamponade requiring urgent surgical repair. Three patients in each group had a cerebrovascular accident and were not associated with device leaks. Conclusion The Lariat device is associated with a lower rate of leaks at 1 year as compared with the Watchman device, with no difference in rates of cerebrovascular accident. There was no correlation between the presence of residual leak and the occurrence of cerebrovascular accident.
AB - Background Watchman and Lariat left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion devices are associated with LAA leaks postdeployment. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence, characteristics, and clinical significance of these leaks. Methods We performed a multicenter prospective observational study of all patients who underwent LAA closure. Baseline, procedural, and imaging variables along with LAA occlusion rates at 30-90 days and 1-year postprocedure were compared. Results A total of 478 patients (219 with the Watchman device and 259 with the Lariat device) with successful implants were included. Patients in the Lariat group had a higher CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age >74 years, diabetes, stroke) score and a larger left atrium and LAA. A total of 79 patients (17%) had a detectable leak at 1 year. More patients in the Watchman group had a leak compared with those in the Lariat group (46 [21%] vs 33 [14%]; P =.019). All the leaks were eccentric (edge effect) in the Watchman group and concentric (gunny sack effect) in the Lariat group. The size of the leak was larger in the Watchman group than in the Lariat group (3.10 ± 1.5 mm vs 2.15 ± 1.3 mm; P =.001). The Watchman group had 1 device embolization requiring surgery and 2 pericardial effusions requiring pericardiocentesis. In the Lariat group, 4 patients had cardiac tamponade requiring urgent surgical repair. Three patients in each group had a cerebrovascular accident and were not associated with device leaks. Conclusion The Lariat device is associated with a lower rate of leaks at 1 year as compared with the Watchman device, with no difference in rates of cerebrovascular accident. There was no correlation between the presence of residual leak and the occurrence of cerebrovascular accident.
KW - Efficacy
KW - Exclusion
KW - Lariat
KW - Left atrial appendage
KW - Safety
KW - Watchman device
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937513502&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937513502&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.03.020
DO - 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.03.020
M3 - Article
C2 - 25778430
AN - SCOPUS:84937513502
SN - 1547-5271
VL - 12
SP - 1501
EP - 1507
JO - Heart Rhythm
JF - Heart Rhythm
IS - 7
ER -