2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.03.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Endocardial (Watchman) vs epicardial (Lariat) left atrial appendage exclusion devices: Understanding the differences in the location and type of leaks and their clinical implications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
82
0
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

4
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 122 publications
(84 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
82
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…After 6 weeks of implantation, complete epithelialization of the device surface is observed . Other techniques include epicardial approaches using a Lariat device (SentreHEART, Redwood, CA, USA) for epicardial ligation of the LAA with sutures, with leaves no foreign body implanted in the LAA . After epicardial exclusion, a significant inflammatory response is observed and the LAA is permanently closed .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After 6 weeks of implantation, complete epithelialization of the device surface is observed . Other techniques include epicardial approaches using a Lariat device (SentreHEART, Redwood, CA, USA) for epicardial ligation of the LAA with sutures, with leaves no foreign body implanted in the LAA . After epicardial exclusion, a significant inflammatory response is observed and the LAA is permanently closed .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During this span, refinements for the LARIAT included improved patient selection with increased operator experience, the adoption of a micropuncture needle and telescoping technique for “dry” pericardial access, and periprocedural colchicine for pericarditis prophylaxis . Despite the overall favorable trend, LARIAT‐related MAUDE data suffer from underreporting, as evidenced by the absence of reports for postprocedural LAA leaks and intracardiac thrombi, which are well‐documented in the literature …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…47,48 Furthermore, based on data from a third multicenter prospective observational study of note, in comparison with the WATCHMAN™ device (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA), use of the LARIAT ® device (SentreHEART, Redwood City, CA, USA) is associated with a lower rate of residual leaks at one year postoperation, though, notably, there was no difference in the incidence rate of cerebrovascular accidents in the two device groups, despite the differences in residual leaks. 49 LAA leaks from incomplete ligation following the LARIAT ® procedure (Sentre-HEART, Redwood City, CA, USA) are not uncommon and can be closed using the AMPLATZER™ septal occluder (Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA) or via a repeat LARIAT ® procedure (SentreHEART, Redwood City, CA, USA). 50,51 In the setting of a foreign body being present in the left atrium from endocardial occlusive device use, platelet aggregation leads to thrombus formation.…”
Section: The Lariat ® Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%