IntroductionLeft atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with LARIAT offers an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for patients with atrial fibrillation. The aim of this study was to present long-term clinical outcomes of LAAC in these patients (AF).Material and methodsA prospective, single-center study was performed in 139 patients undergoing LAAC with Lariat. Thromboembolic events, severe bleeding and mortality rate were recorded. The reduction in risk of thromboembolism and bleeding after LAAC was calculated.ResultsThe mean CHADS2-score was 1.8 ± 1.0, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 2.9 ± 1.6 and HAS-BLED score was 3.1 ± 1.1. After 428.4 patient-years of follow-up (mean 4.2±1.0 years), the thromboembolism rate was 0.6% with a calculated thromboembolism risk reduction of 81%. The severe bleeding rate was 0.8%; calculated bleeding risk reduction was 78%. The overall mortality rate was 1.6%.ConclusionsLong-term outcomes show that LAAC with Lariat is a safe and effective treatment for stroke prevention and bleeding risk reduction in AF patients with a high level of underlying risk.

No abstract

Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) became an alternative method for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) intolerant to long term oral anticoagulation therapy. This study aimed to compare endocardial (Amulet and LAmbere occluders) and epicardial (Lariat) LAAC techniques.Methods: A retrospective, observational case-control study included 223 consecutive CHA 2 DS 2 -VAS score-matched patients with AF who underwent LAAC in two centers.Results: There were 55 matched cases with the mean CHA2DS2-VASs score 4.4 ± 1.22 (p = 1). Overall follow-up was 308.2 patient-years. The Endocardial group patients were older and more often females with congestive heart failure and peripheral vascular disease. The epicardial group more frequently had a stroke/ transient ischemic attack history. There were no differences in hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and indications for procedure between both groups. The mean HAS-BLED score was significantly higher in the endocardial group than in the epicardial group (4.3 ± 0.9 vs. 3.7 ± 1.3, p = .011). There were no differences in annual rates of thromboembolic events (2.6% vs 0.5%) and annual stroke (0.87% vs. 0%) between the endocardial and epicardial groups. Conclusion: Endocardial and Epicardial LAAC techniques show comparableimplantation outcomes and safety profile and stroke prevention in patients with AF.Future randomized studies are needed to corroborate these initial results and assess long term mortality.

Objectives: Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion (LAAO) is a procedure dominated by cardiologists. The aim of our study was to present the results of percutaneous LAAO performed solely by cardiac surgeons. Methods: Two hundred twenty-three consecutive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation underwent percutaneous LAAO in two cardiac surgery sites. In the first center, all 84 LAAO procedures were performed with the endocardial LAA occluders: 60 cases with the Amulet and 24 cases with the LAmbre. In the second center, all 139 LAAO procedures were performed with the LARIAT epicardial device. Results: The mean CHA 2 DS 2-VASc-score was 3.7 ± 1.8 points, and mean HAS-BLED score was 3.6 ± 1.2 points. The procedure was successful in 97.3% of cases. Procedural or device-related adverse events were noted in 4.4% (n = 10) of cases: one periprocedural cardiac arrest, one aortic injury, one gastrointestinal bleeding, three cases of vascular access complications, and four cardiac tamponades. After a followup of 40.3 ± 17.3 months, 78.4% of patients were alive, with the annual mortality rate of 5.3%. Compared to the predicted risk, the observed incidence of thromboembolism was lower by 71%, and the bleeding incidence was lower by 69%. Conclusions: Percutaneous LAAO procedures can be safely performed by cardiac surgeons, with no cardiological assistance. LAAO done by surgeons is safe and effective, and periprocedural and long-term outcomes are excellent. Cardiac surgeons should be trained in both types of LAAO: endocardial and epicardial.

Background Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a safe and effective alternative for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is little literature on the exact causes of death and adverse events during follow-up after LAAO. aims The primary aim of this study was to evaluate survival free of any serious adverse events and of any-cause death in midterm follow-up. The secondary aims were to analyze causes of mortality and further hospitalization as well as adverse events, thromboembolism, and bleeding risk reduction during follow-up. methods A retrospective, single-center study was performed in 84 consecutive patients with AF who underwent LAAO with endocardial occluders. The mean (SD) CHADS 2 score was 3.5 (1.1), CHA 2 DS 2-VASc score, 5.0 (1.5), and HAS-BLED score, 4.4 (0.9). After LAAO, dual 6-month antiplatelet therapy and then lifelong aspirin monotherapy was recommended. Mean (SD) follow-up was 25.3 (13.2) months with an accumulated total follow-up of 174.6 patient-years. results The annual mortality rate was 12.02%. More than half of deaths (57%) were due to noncardiovascular causes with leading malignancy. Survival at the end of the periprocedural period was 98.8%, at 3 months, 97.6%, at 6 months, 95.2%, at 12 months, 86.5%, at 18 months, 85.1%, and at 24 months, 80.6%. The average annual thromboembolic event rate was 2.87%. The most common adverse event was severe bleeding with an annual rate of 6.3% (3 cases while receiving dual antiplatelet therapy and 6 cases while receiving aspirin). conclusions The majority of deaths were not related to stroke in patients with AF after LAAO. Mortality in first 2 years following the procedure was predominantly from noncardiovascular causes.