touchCARDIO touchCARDIO
Interventional Cardiology
Read Time: 9 mins

Peri- and Post-procedural Anticoagulation with Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Devices

Copy Link
Published Online: Jun 21st 2023 Heart International. 2023;17(1):54–9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17925/HI.2023.17.1.54
Authors: Pradyumna Agasthi, Sai Harika Pujari
Quick Links:
Abstract
Article
Article Information
Abstract:
Overview

In patients with atrial fibrillation and high stroke risk, anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists is the standard of care for stroke prevention. The benefit of anticoagulation is driven by attenuating the risk of thrombus formation in the left atrial appendage. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion offers an alternative therapeutic strategy for stroke prevention in patients with high bleeding risk or contraindications for long-term anticoagulation. This review of the current literature delineates the standard protocols of peri- and post-procedural anticoagulation/antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage occlusion, the complications of the procedure, and the risk of device-related thrombosis and of incomplete occlusion of the appendage. Finally, the limitations and gaps in the literature are identified.

Keywords

Anticoagulation, antithrombotic therapy, atrial fibrillation, bleeding risk, direct oral anticoagulants, left atrial appendage occlusion, stroke, vitamin K antagonists

Article:

A significant proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have a high stroke risk are currently being treated with oral anticoagulation (OAC), including direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K inhibitors (VKAs).1 It is well known that the increased risk of thromboembolic stroke in patients with AF is primarily due to left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombus formation and consequent embolization.2 About 30–40% of patients with AF and an indication for anticoagulation do not receive anticoagulation due to contraindication such as high bleeding risk, medication intolerance or patient preference.3 Numerous studies have shown that left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), by excluding the LAA from the systemic circulation, effectively decreases AF-related stroke risk.4–11 The WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) device was approved for the treatment of LAAO by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 202012 after two pivotal randomized controlled clinical trials, the PREVAIL trail (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01182441) and the PROTECT AF trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00129545).13–16 However, they recommended anticoagulation after the procedure. The current recommendations indicate the prescription of OAC (VKA or DOAC) plus aspirin for 45 days, followed by dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin (81–325 mg) and clopidogrel (75 mg) for 6 months, and aspirin (81–325 mg) indefinitely after that.17 LAAO can, however, result in certain procedural complications, including air embolism with subsequent stroke, pericardial effusions and device-related thrombus (DRT). DRT after LAAO has been shown to be associated with increased stroke risk.18,19 Anticoagulation regimen after LAAO remains a controversial issue and a challenge as a significant proportion of patients are at high risk of bleeding or intolerant to anticoagulation.

This article aims to comprehensively review the current literature regarding peri- and post-procedural anticoagulation with LAAO devices. The objectives of the review are to understand the indications and contraindications of the procedure; antithrombotic therapy before, during and after implantation of the device in patients with and without contraindications to OAC; the complications of the procedure; DRT; and incomplete occlusion of the appendage. The article also reviews the limitations of the current data and gaps in the literature.

Peri-procedural anticoagulation strategies

Thrombus in the LAA is the primary source of cardioembolic phenomena in patients with AF. Ninety percent of atrial thrombus cases were shown to be in the LAA in patients with non-rheumatic AF, as shown by the review by Blackshear and Odell.4 Anticoagulation in AF is recommended based on the CHA2DS2-VASc score. However, some patients have contraindications to long-term anticoagulation, including thrombocytopaenia, recurrent bleeding from various sites (gastrointestinal, respiratory or genitourinary), prior severe bleeding, recurrent falls or medication non-compliance. Hence, the concept of closure of the LAA and of possibly removing the need for anticoagulation has been proposed and has been around since 1948.20 However, there is still controversy around the optimal post-interventional regimen of antithrombotic drugs. Endovascular devices for LAAO include the WATCHMAN, Amplatzer (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) and WaveCrest® (Johnson & JohnsonNew Brunswick, NJ, USA) devices. The LARIAT system (SentreHeart Inc, Redwood City, CA, USA) is a percutaneous device used ‘off label’ in the USA.17 For catheter-based LAAO, a thrombus visualized either by a transoesophageal echocardiogram or coronary computed tomography angiography scan is considered a contraindication.21 Antithrombotic drugs such as unfractionated hepwarin guided by partial thromboplastin time or oral anticoagulants (e.g. DOACs or VKAs) for ≥4 weeks are recommended in such situations.21 LAAO is performed after the documented resolution of the thrombus.

During device implantation, unfractionated heparin is commonly used among intravenous anticoagulation agents. In the PROTECT AF trial, an international normalized ratio of <2.0 was recommended.16 After the transseptal puncture, weight-adjusted heparin (70–100 IU/kg) was administered, and an activated clotting time of >200 s was maintained during the procedure, while aspirin (81–325 mg) was started at least a day before the procedure.16,22 However, some operators might be comfortable performing the procedure while the patient is on VKA (with INR>2.0) or on a DOAC.

The PROTECT AF16 and PREVAIL13 studies were both conducted on patients with AF, who received warfarin plus low-dose aspirin for 45 days, followed by low-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel 75 mg (DAPT) for 6 months and by aspirin 325 mg daily lifelong after that. Both studies showed that the efficacy of LAAO was non-inferior to anticoagulation alone.

A meta-analysis of both trials confirmed these results.23 Bleeding complications occurred in about 1.2% of the patients on aspirin and OAC during evaluation 45 days after the implant.21,23 Subsequently, 0.6% of these patients had a bleeding event when they received DAPT in the following study period.24 In patients with contraindications to OAC, decisions regarding anticoagulation after the procedure and stroke prophylaxis can be particularly challenging.

Another remarkable study is the EWOLUTION trial, which reported outcomes at 1 and 2 years (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01972282).25 In this trial, 72% of patients could not adapt to harsh anticoagulation and hence were switched to DAPT, single antiplatelet therapy or no medication. A total of 66% were changed to single antiplatelet or no therapy after 3–6 months; by the end of the study, 84% of the active patients were only on single antiplatelet therapy or none. Despite these switches, the outcomes of the WATCHMAN implant were favourable. Patients with the LAAO device had consistently low rates of non-procedural bleeding and stroke.

There are relatively fewer studies on surgical LAAO. In the LAAOS III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01561651), patients with AF were randomized to either undergo LAAO at the time of cardiac surgery for another indication or to not undergo the procedure and continue with anticoagulation.26 Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 4.8% of participants in the occlusion group and 7.0% of participants in the control group; moreover, there was not a significant difference in the incidence of peri-operative bleeding, heart failure or death between groups. Another study investigated antithrombotic therapy after the LAAO procedure.27 It showed an association between adding aspirin to anticoagulation and an increased risk of bleeding; anticoagulation alone had a similar reduction in major adverse events but no increase in ischaemic events. Patients who were discharged on DAPT did not differ significantly in terms of risk of adverse events compared with aspirin and warfarin after adjustment of risk profiles.

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines from 2016 make a Class IIb recommendation for LAAO for stroke prevention in patients with AF who have contraindications for long-term anticoagulation.28 The 2020 update of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) expert consensus statements assert that LAAO is acceptable in patients with contraindications to anticoagulation.21 Published in 2019, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) focused update of 2014 guidelines also provided a Class IIb recommendation for percutaneous LAAO for patients with AF with increased risk of stroke and who have contraindications to long-term anticoagulation.11,29 This update also gave a Class IIb recommendation for surgical LAAO for patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery.

The recommendations are detailed as follows (Table 1). The EHRA/EAPCI consensus update provided five clinical situations and discussed indications for LAAO in each.21,30 They recommend that LAAO “may be done’’ instead of OAC in patients who are eligible for OAC and require stroke prevention if they refuse OAC. They also recommend LAAO in patients with AF with absolute contraindications for long-term OAC with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 (3 in women) who can be given 2–4 weeks of single antiaggregant. The contraindications that are defined in the consensus update are the risk of major bleeding (especially disabling or life-threatening bleeding due to an untreatable source of intracranial/intraspinal bleeding or severe gastrointestinal, pulmonary, or urogenital source of bleeding that cannot be corrected) and severe side effects under VKA and/or contraindications to the novel OACs. A risk-benefit analysis needs to be performed between OAC and LAAO in patients with an elevated bleeding risk while on long-term OAC, and decisions should be made accordingly. They also give a weak recommendation to consider LAAO in the same clinical situation. In patients unwilling to take OAC even after extensive patient education, they weakly recommend considering LAAO and discussing it as a therapeutic alternative after maximum attempts to resolve the reasons/issues for non-compliance. The AHA/ACC/HRS 2019 guideline updates weakly recommend percutaneous LAAO in patients with AF at increased risk of stroke with contraindications to long-term OAC.11 They also weakly recommend surgical LAAO in patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery, as a component of an overall heart team approach in managing AF.

Based on the PROTECT-AF study, it is recommended to prescribe anticoagulation (DOAC or VKA) plus aspirin for 45 days, followed by DAPT (aspirin plus clopidogrel) for 6 months and aspirin daily thereafter.31 However, DAPT (aspirin and clopidogrel) for 6 months after the procedure is recommended for individuals with absolute contraindications to OAC, as shown in the ASAP study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00851578),32 or for a shorter period of 1–3 months for individuals who are at high risk of bleeding.33 As many patients with AF have concomitant atherosclerotic vascular disease, LAAO may allow us to use an ideal regimen for patients with coronary artery disease with DAPT or a low-dose DOAC and single antiplatelet therapy.34,35 The WOEST trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00769938) observed excess mortality in patients with AF undergoing percutaneous cardiovascular intervention who were managed with triple therapy of DAPT and OAC, compared with those undergoing dual therapy of DOAC and clopidogrel.36

A summary of the clinical scenarios and guidance regarding OAC/antithrombotic therapies post-LAAO are provided in Figure 1.

The safety and complication numbers of the WATCHMAN device have improved significantly over time due to increased experience and improved equipment. A registry with more than 38,000 WATCHMAN implantations shows a procedural success rate of 98.3%.37 A study compared the outcomes between the PROTECT AF study and a non-randomized Continued Access Protocol registry of patients undergoing WATCHMAN implantations after the randomized trial and found a decline in procedure- or device-related safety in 7 days in the non-randomized registry compared with the randomized trial.38

Potential complications can arise from the procedure or due to the device. Procedure-related death was reported to occur in 0.19% of cases and cardiac arrest in 0.24% of cases by the National Cardiovascular Data LAAO Registry.37 Major vascular complications occur peri-procedurally relatively more often than other complications, accounting for 0.15% according to the registry; this may be due to vein puncture or transseptal puncture, for example. The incidence of pericardial effusion has also decreased over time due to increased operator experience, with the most recent evidence indicating a tamponade incidence rate of about 1.3%.39,40 Concerning peri-procedural stroke events, ischaemic strokes accounted for 0.12% of cases and haemorrhagic accounted for 0.01% of cases.37 Strokes can be caused by device-related leaks, DRT and air embolism. Device embolization occurred in 0.07% of the patients included in the registry.37 Device erosion is a rare but devastating complication.

DRT aetiology is likely multifactorial and differs between patients.41 It is more common in patients with reduced left ventricular systolic function, larger LAAs, and higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores.19 It can occur late following LAAO, and a large number of patients recur and have it after successful resolution.42,43 DRT is clinically significant because its association with thromboembolic events is well established. Several studies have shown an increased incidence of stroke, systemic embolism, and death among patients with DRT.19,42,44,45 Several risk factors have been proposed to predict DRT;44,46 however, emerging concepts in DRT also include the possible role of the flow dynamics on thrombus formation and early detection of DRT precursors using cardiac computed tomography.47 Treatment is usually 6 weeks of OAC, and the extension of the treatment depends on bleeding risk and other contributing factors such as persistent device leak or spontaneous contrast in the left atrium.48,49 However, DRT is challenging in clinical practice as there are still several management issues, including the fact that most patients are not suitable for prolonged or intensified anticoagulation, the persistence of DRT in 20–25% of patients despite anticoagulation treatment, high recurrence rates and uncertainty of the management of different DRTs, especially with highly mobile or/and large thrombi.43–45

Peridevice leak (PDL) incidence varies widely, as there is a lack of consensus on leak detection and classification methods.47 The cutoff of what is considered to be a PDL differs widely between studies. There are several limitations to studies assessing PDL effect on outcomes, such as the large sample size requirement (as the rates of stroke or systemic embolization post-LAAO are low), the variability in the definition of significant and nonsignificant leaks (e.g. >3 mm, >5 mm), the variation in the classification used in clinical practice, and the current treatment for large leaks being anticoagulation, which confounds the assessment of the impact of PDL.50,51 The management of PDL remains uncertain as the current literature is limited. In smaller PDLs, watchful waiting has been suggested.24,52,53 Closure of the PDLs has been studied and showed complete or near-complete obliteration with low complication rates; however, the long-term efficacy is currently unknown.51,54–57

While there have been several observational studies58,59 targeting patients with a high thromboembolic risk but contraindications to OAC or systemic anticoagulation, no randomized data exist for such population. Nonetheless, the EHRA/EAPCI consensus statement indicates that LAAO is safe and effective despite the absence of even temporary OAC.21 DAPT is usually recommended for 1–6 months followed by lifelong antiplatelet therapy. Management usually involves 6 weeks of anticoagulation but can be extended depending on bleeding risk and other factors, such as PDL or spontaneous contrast in the left atrium.48,49

The limitations of the study are largely due to the limitations of the trials described. The big trials, PROTECT AF and PREVAIL, had small sample sizes (707 and 407, respectively).13,16 Reviewers for the FDA found PROTECT AF’s handling of haemorrhagic strokes to be inconsistent.60 In addition, a second co-primary efficacy endpoint of systemic embolism or ischaemic stroke occurring more than 7 days following surgery were included in the PREVAIL trial.16 Two meta-analyses of PROTECT AF and PREVAIL showed a similar pattern of outcomes to the original studies, with greater rates of ischaemic stroke and lower rates of haemorrhagic stroke and cardiovascular/unexplained mortality.15,23 From the current studies, there are comparisons with VKAs but not with oral anticoagulants and LAAO.

As previously mentioned, there are no trials with a large sample exploring the efficacy of LAAO; furthermore, no trials directly compare DAPT and OAC or the different devices. The ANDES trial (Short-term anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy for preventing device thrombosis following LAAOClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03568890) will compare short-term novel OAC with antiplatelet therapy for patients after LAAO.61 The STROKECLOSE trial (Prevention of stroke by LAAO in AF patients after intracerebral hemorrhageClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02830152) will compare LAAO with Amplatzer Amulet™ (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) or medical therapy in patients with previous intracerebral haemorrhage.62 The SAFE-LAAC trial (Optimal antiplatelet therapy following LAAOClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03445949) will compare 30 days versus six months of DAPT after LAAO.63 The CLOSURE-AF trial (LAAO in patients with AF compared to medical therapyClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03463317) will compare LAAO versus medical therapy in patients with a high risk of bleeding.64 The ASAP-TOO trial (Assessment of the WATCHMAN™ device in patients unsuitable for OACClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02928497) will compare patients with contraindications to anticoagulation after LAAO with WATCHMAN receiving single and DAPT.65 All on-going trials are listed in Table 2.

Conclusions

Percutaneous LAAO is increasingly being used for stroke prevention in patients with AF, especially in patients with high bleeding risk and with contraindications to anticoagulation. On-going trials will potentially help clarify the appropriate antithrombotic therapy post-LAAO and help reduce post-procedural complications.

Article Information:
Disclosure

Pradyumna Agasthi and Sai Harika Pujari have no financial or non-financial relationships or activities to declare in relation to this article.

Compliance With Ethics

This article involves a review of the literature and did not involve any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Review Process

Double-blind peer review.

Authorship

The named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship of this manuscript, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given final approval for the version to be published.

Correspondence

Pradyumna AgasthiDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic ArizonaSai Harika Pujari- 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ 85054USApradyumna_agasthi@hotmail.com

Support

No funding was received in the publication of this article.

Access

This article is freely accessible at touchCARDIOLOGY.com © Touch Medical Media 2023

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the writing of this article.

Received

2022-10-24

References

1. Burlacu AGenovesi SArtene BCovic AWill the king ever be dethroned?’ The relationship and the future of oral anticoagulation therapy versus LAA closure devicesExpert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2021;19:14DOI: 10.1080/14779072.2021.1850267.

2. Wolf PAAbbott RDKannel WBAtrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: The Framingham study. Stroke1991;22:9838DOI10.1161/01.str.22.8.983.

3. Kakkar AKMueller IBassand J-Pet alRisk profiles and antithrombotic treatment of patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke: Perspectives from the international, observational, prospective GARFIELD RegistryPLOS ONE2013;8:e63479DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0063479.

4. Blackshear JLOdell JAAppendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillationAnn Thorac Surg1996;61:7559DOI10.1016/0003-4975(95)00887-X.

5. Stoddard MFDawkins PRPrince CRAmmash NMLeft atrial appendage thrombus is not uncommon in patients with acute atrial fibrillation and a recent embolic event: A transesophageal echocardiographics tudy. J Am Coll Cardiol1995;25:4529DOI10.1016/0735-1097(94)00396-8.

6. Jain AKGallagher SPercutaneous occlusion of the left atrial appendage in non-valvular atrial fibrillation for the prevention of thromboembolism: NICE guidanceHeart2011;97:7625. DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2010.208223.

7. Bartus KBednarek JMyc Jet alFeasibility of closed-chest ligation of the left atrial appendage in humansHeart Rhythm2011;8:18893DOI10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.10.040.

8. Fountain RHolmes DRHodgson PKet alPotential applicability and utilization of left atrial appendage occlusion devices in patients with atrial fibrillationAm Heart J2006;152:7203. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.05.001.

9. Block PCBurstein SCasale PNet alPercutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion for patients in atrial fibrillation suboptimal for warfarin therapy: 5-year results of the PLAATO (Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Transcatheter Occlusion) StudyJACC Cardiovasc Interv2009;2:594600. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2009.05.005.

10. Bartus KHan FTBednarek Jet alPercutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation using the LARIAT device in patients with atrial fibrillation: Initial clinical experienceJ Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:10818DOI10.1016/j.jacc.2012.06.046.

11. January CTWann LSCalkins Het al2019 AHA/ACC/HRS focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm SocietyJ Am Coll Cardiol2019;74:10432DOI10.1016/j.jacc.2019.01.011.

12. U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationWATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure device with delivery system and WATCHMAN FLX left atrial appendage closure device with delivery system – P130013/S035. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/recently-approved-devices/watchman-left-atrial-appendage-closure-device-delivery-system-and-watchman-flx-left-atrial-appendage (Date last accessed: 16 June 2023).

13. Holmes DRKar SPrice MJet alProspective randomized evaluation of the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: The PREVAIL trialJ Am Coll Cardiol2014;64:112DOI10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.029.

14. Reddy VYSievert HHalperin Jet alPercutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: A randomized clinical trialJAMA2014;312:198898DOI10.1001/jama.2014.15192.

15. Reddy VYDoshi SKKar Set al5-year outcomes after left atrial appendage closure: From the PREVAIL and PROTECT AF trialsJ Am Coll Cardiol2017;70:296475DOI10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.021.

16. Holmes DRReddy VYTuri ZGet alPercutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: A randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet2009;374:53442. DOI10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61343-X.

17. Ziyad M Hijazi MMPH FFACC Met alAtrial fibrillation: Left atrial appendage occlusion. UpToDate. 2021Available atwww.uptodate.com/contents/atrial-fibrillation-left-atrial-appendage-occlusion (Date last accessed: 15 June 2023).

18. Aminian ASchmidt BMazzone Pet alIncidence, characterization, and clinical impact of device-related thrombus following left atrial appendage occlusion in the prospective global AMPLATZER amulet observational studyJACC Cardiovasc Interv2019;12:100314DOI10.1016/j.jcin.2019.02.003.

19. Dukkipati SRKar SHolmes DRet alDevice-related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure. Circulation. 2018;138:87485DOI10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035090.

20. Whitlock RPHealey JSHolmes DRLeft atrial appendage occlusion debate revisited. Circulation2015;131:75661DOI10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.008840.

21. Glikson MWolff RHindricks Get alEHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – An updateEuroIntervention2020;15:113380. DOI: 10.4244/EIJY19M08_01.

22. Fountain RBHolmes DRChandrasekaran Ket alThe PROTECT AF (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) trialAm Heart J. 2006;151:95661DOI10.1016/j.ahj.2006.02.005.

23. Holmes DRDoshi SKKar Set alLeft atrial appendage closure as an alternative to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: A patient-level meta-analysisJ Am Coll Cardiol2015;65:261423. DOI10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.025.

24. Viles-Gonzalez JFKar SDouglas Pet alThe clinical impact of incomplete left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman Device in patients with atrial fibrillation: A PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) substudyJ Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:9239DOI10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.028.

25. Boersma LVInce HKische Set alEvaluating real-world clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation patients receiving the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure technology: Final 2-year outcome data of the EWOLUTION trial focusing on history of stroke and hemorrhageCirc Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019;12:e006841DOI10.1161/CIRCEP.118.006841.

26. Whitlock RPBelley-Cote EPPaparella Det alLeft atrial appendage occlusion during cardiac surgery to prevent strokeN Engl J Med2021;384:208191DOI10.1056/NEJMoa2101897.

27. Freeman JVHiggins AYWang Yet alAntithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillationJ Am Coll Cardiol2022;79:178598DOI10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.047.

28. Kirchhof PBenussi SKotecha Det alESC guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTSEur Heart J2016;37:2893962. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw210.

29. January CTWann LSAlpert JSet alAHA/ACC/HRS guideline for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines and the Heart Rhythm SocietyJ Am Coll Cardiol2014;64:e176. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.03.022.

30. Glikson MWolff RHindricks Get alEHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – An updateEuropace2020;22:184DOI10.1093/europace/euz258.

31. Alli ODoshi SKar Set alQuality of life assessment in the randomized PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial of patients at risk for stroke with nonvalvular atrial fibrillationJ Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:17908DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.061.

32. Reddy VYMöbius-Winkler SMiller MAet alLeft atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device in patients with a contraindication for oral anticoagulation: The ASAP study (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology)J Am Coll Cardiol2013;61:25516. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.03.035.

33. Saw JHolmes DRCavalcante JLet alSCAI/HRS expert consensus statement on Transcatheter left atrial appendage closureJACC Cardiovasc Interv2023;16:1384400DOI10.1016/j.jcin.2023.01.011.

34. Gibson CMMehran RBode Cet alPrevention of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCIN Engl J Med2016;375:242334DOI10.1056/NEJMoa1611594.

35. Eikelboom JWConnolly SJBosch Jet alRivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular diseaseN Engl J Med2017;377:131930DOI10.1056/NEJMoa1709118.

36. Dewilde WJMOirbans TVerheugt FWAet alUse of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An open-label, randomised, controlled trialLancet2013;381:110715DOI10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62177-1.

37. Freeman JVVarosy PPrice MJet alThe NCDR Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion RegistryJ Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:150318DOI10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.040.

38. Reddy VYHolmes DDoshi SKet alSafety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: Results from the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with AF (PROTECT AF) clinical trial and the Continued Access RegistryCirculation2011;123:41724. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.976449.

39. Reddy VYGibson DNKar Set alExperience with left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillationJ Am Coll Cardiol2017;69:25361DOI10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.010.

40. Price MJValderrábano MZimmerman Set alPeriprocedural pericardial effusion complicating transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion: A report from the NCDR LAAO RegistryCirc Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15:e011718DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.011718.

41. Tandar ANielsen JWhisenant BKLeft atrial appendage closure review: Addressing unmet needs of AF mediated stroke prevention with evolving scienceStructural Heart2021;5:310. DOI: 10.1080/24748706.2020.1834173.

42. Alkhouli MBusu TShah Ket alIncidence and clinical impact of device-related thrombus following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: A meta-analysisJACC Clin Electrophysiol2018;4:162937. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.09.007.

43. Asmarats LCruz-González INombela-Franco Let alRecurrence of device-related thrombus after percutaneous left atrial appendage closureCirculation2019;140:14413. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040860.

44. Simard TJung RGLehenbauer Ket alPredictors of device-related thrombus following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusionJ Am Coll Cardiol2021;78:297313. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.098.

45. Sedaghat AVij VAl-Kassou Bet alDevice-related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure: Data on thrombus characteristics, treatment strategies, and clinical outcomes from the EUROC-DRT-RegistryCirc Cardiovasc Interv2021;14:e010195DOI10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.010195.

46. Simard TJHibbert BAlkhouli MAet alDevice-related thrombus following left atrial appendage occlusion. EuroIntervention2022;18:22432DOI10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01010.

47. Alkhouli MEllis CRDaniels Met alLeft atrial appendage occlusion: Current advances and remaining challengesJACC: Advances2022;1:100136DOI10.1016/j.jacadv.2022.100136.

48. Saw JNielsen-Kudsk JEBergmann Met alAntithrombotic therapy and device-related thrombosis following endovascular left atrial appendage closureJACC Cardiovasc Interv2019;12:106776. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.11.001.

49. Asmarats LO’Hara GChampagne Jet alShort-term oral anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy following transcatheter left atrial appendage closureCirc Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:e009039DOI10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009039.

50. Raphael CEFriedman PASaw Jet alResidual leaks following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: Assessment and management implicationsEuroIntervention2017;13:121825. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00469.

51. Alkhouli MChaker ZClemetson Eet alIncidence, characteristics and management of persistent peri-device flow after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusionStructural Heart2019;3:4918. DOI10.1080/24748706.2019.1663381.

52. Kar SDoshi SKSadhu Aet alPrimary outcome evaluation of a next-generation left atrial appendage closure deviceCirculation2021;143:175462DOI10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.050117.

53. Afzal MRGabriels JKJackson GGet alTemporal changes and clinical implications of delayed peridevice leak following left atrial appendage closureJACC Clin Electrophysiol2022;8:1525. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.06.018.

54. Alkhouli MManagement of peridevice leak after LAAO: Coils, plugs, occluders, or better understanding of the problem? JACC Cardiovasc Interv2020;13:3202. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.10.051.

55. Killu AMGbolabo Adeola ODella Rocca DGet alLeak closure following left atrial appendage exclusion procedures: A multicenter registryCatheter Cardiovasc Interv2022;99:186776. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.30139.

56. Piayda KSievert KDella Rocca DGet alSafety and feasibility of peri-device leakage closure after LAAO: An international, multicentre collaborative studyEuroIntervention2021;17:e103340DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00286.

57. Della Rocca DGHorton RPDi Biase Let alFirst experience of transcatheter leak occlusion with detachable coils following left atrial appendage closureJACC Cardiovasc Interv2020;13:30619DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.10.022.

58. Sharma DLeft atrial appendage closure in patients with Contraindications to oral anticoagulationJ Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;21902DOI10.1016/j.jacc.2016.02.053.

59. Boersma LVInce HKische Set alEfficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure with WATCHMAN in patients with or without Contraindication to oral anticoagulation: 1-year follow-up outcome data of the EWOLUTION trialHeart Rhythm2017;14:13028DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.05.038.

60. FDAFDA Executive Summary2014DOI10.1002/yd.20082.

61. ClinicalTrials.govShort-Term Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy for Preventing Device Thrombosis Following Left Atrial Appendage Closure (ANDES). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03568890Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03568890 (Date last accessed: 7 June 2023).

62. ClinicalTrials.govPrevention of Stroke by Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Atrial Fibrillation Patients After Intracerebral Hemorrhage. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02830152Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02830152 (Date last accessed7 June 2023).

63. ClinicalTrials.govOptimal Antiplatelet Therapy Following Left Atrial Appendage Closure (SAFE-LAAC). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03445949Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03445949 (Date last accessed7 June 2023).

64. ClinicalTrials.govLeft Atrial Appendage CLOSURE in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Compared to Medical Therapy (CLOSURE-AF). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03463317Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03463317 (Date last accessed7 June 2023).

65. ClinicalTrials.govAssessment of the WATCHMAN™ Device in Patients Unsuitable for Oral Anticoagulation (ASAP-TOO). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02928497 . Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02928497 (Date last accessed7 June 2023).

Further Resources

Share this Article
Related Content In Interventional Cardiology
  • Copied to clipboard!
    accredited arrow-down-editablearrow-downarrow_leftarrow-right-bluearrow-right-dark-bluearrow-right-greenarrow-right-greyarrow-right-orangearrow-right-whitearrow-right-bluearrow-up-orangeavatarcalendarchevron-down consultant-pathologist-nurseconsultant-pathologistcrosscrossdownloademailexclaimationfeedbackfiltergraph-arrowinterviewslinkmdt_iconmenumore_dots nurse-consultantpadlock patient-advocate-pathologistpatient-consultantpatientperson pharmacist-nurseplay_buttonplay-colour-tmcplay-colourAsset 1podcastprinter scenerysearch share single-doctor social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtubeshape-star (1)tick-bluetick-orangetick-red tick-whiteticktimetranscriptup-arrowwebinar Sponsored Department Location NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-07NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-08NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-09NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-10NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-11NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-12Salary £ TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-01TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-02TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-03TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-04TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-05TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-06TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-07TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-08TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-09TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-10TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-11TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-12TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-13TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-14TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-15TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-16TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-17TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-18TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-19TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-20TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-21TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-22TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-23TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-24TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-25TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-26TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-27TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-28TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-29TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-30TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-31TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-32TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-33TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-34TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-35TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-36TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-37TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-38TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-39TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-40TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-41TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-42TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-43TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-44TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-45TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-46TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-47TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-48TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-49TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-50TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-51TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-52TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-53TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-54TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-55TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-56TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-57TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-58TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-59TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-60TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-61TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-62TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-63TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-64TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-65TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-66TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-67TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-68TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-69TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-70TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-71TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-72