Reduced regenerative capacity of valvular ECs due to senescence and decreased levels of EPCs might be, at least in part, a pathological link for the destruction of valvular ECs, resulting in progression of degenerative AS.

No abstract

Aims This study compares clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer devices for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). Methods and results Of two real-world registries, the Watchman registry Lichtenfels, Germany, and the Amplatzer registry Bern-Zurich, Switzerland, 303 and 333 consecutive patients, respectively, were included. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 266 vs. 266 patients were compared by use of the predefined primary efficacy endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all above-mentioned hazards. Mean age was 75.3 ± 7.8 (Watchman) vs. 75.1 ± 9.9 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.5 ± 1.5, and HAS-BLED score 3.2 ± 1.0 vs. 3.2 ± 1.0. At a mean follow-up of 2.4 ± 1.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 years and 1.322 patient-years, the primary endpoints of efficacy [40/646, 6.2% [Watchman] vs. 43/676, 6.4% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio (HR), 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66–1.58; P = 0.92] and safety (33/646, 5.1% vs. 30/676, 4.4%; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29–1.11; P = 0.10), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (69/646, 10.7% vs. 66/676, 9.8%; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55–1.12; P = 0.26) were similar for both groups. Conclusion This study suggests comparable efficacy and safety of the Watchman and Amplatzer devices.

Introduction The LAmbre (LifeTech Scientific, Shenzhen, China) is a novel occluder for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation. This study compares late clinical outcomes of LAmbre and the established Amplatzer devices (Abbott, St Paul, MN). Methods Between 2012 and 2018, 265 consecutive patients underwent LAAC with LAmbre and Amplatzer devices at a single center. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 40 (LAmbre) vs 107 (Amplatzer) patients were compared by the primary efficacy endpoint of all‐cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow‐up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all the above‐mentioned hazards. Results The mean age 75.6 ± 8.9 (LAmbre) vs 75.5 ± 9.0 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2DS2‐VASc score 4.8 ± 1.7 vs 4.8 ± 1.7 and HAS‐BLED score 3.1 ± 0.9 vs 3.2 ± 0.8 were similar. After 3.6 ± 1.9 vs 2.5 ± 1.4 years, the clinical efficacy (12/146, 8.2% [LAmbre] vs 28/266, 10.5% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38‐1.40; P = .34) and safety (5/146, 3.4% vs 14/266, 5.3%; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.14‐1.6; P = .22), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (15/146, 10.3% vs 36/266, 13.6%; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.36‐1.25; P = .21) were comparable. Conclusion In the presented report, in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the LAmbre offered similar long‐term efficacy and safety in comparison to Amplatzer devices.