Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine (Nov 2022)

Combined atrial fibrillation ablation and left atrial appendage closure: Watchman vs. LAmbre devices

  • Jin-Yan Ke,
  • Lu-Shen Jin,
  • Yuan-Nan Lin,
  • Jing Xu,
  • Wei-Ke Liu,
  • Jia-Yang Fu,
  • Ling Li,
  • Yi-Lian Chen,
  • Yi-Xuan Qiu,
  • Yue-Chun Li

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.1011037
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundLeft atrial appendage closure (LAAC) combined with radiofrequency catheter ablation is an emerging one-stop hybrid procedure for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). This study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the Watchman device vs. the LAmbre device for this combined procedure.MethodsTwo hundred and thirty two patients with AF who underwent the combined procedure were enrolled and divided into two subgroups depending on the device choice: the Watchman-combined group (n = 118) and the LAmbre-combined group (n = 114). The periprocedural and follow-up adverse events in both groups were documented.ResultsThe mean CHA2DS2-VASc score and HAS-BLED score in the Watchman-combined group and LAmbre-combined group were 3.7 ± 1.5 vs. 3.8 ± 1.5 and 2.5 ± 1.1 vs. 2.3 ± 1.1, respectively (all P > 0.05). Successful LAAC was achieved in all patients. The rate of major periprocedural complications and AF recurrence at 6 months post-procedure were similar between the Watchman-combined group and LAmbre-combined group (0.8 vs. 0.9%, P = 1.00; 22.0 vs. 15.8%, P = 0.23). During 2.6 ±0 .7 vs.1.6 ± 1.6 years follow-up, the rate of major clinical adverse events, including stroke and major bleeding, were comparable between the Watchman-combined group and the LAmbre-combined group (2.6 vs. 1.1% per 100 patient-years, P = 0.33). The intraprocedural peri-device leakage (PDL) rate was similar between the Watchman-combined group and the LAmbre-combined group (5.1 vs. 6.1%, P = 0.73), but the PDL rate was significantly higher at 3–6 months transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) follow-up than the intraprocedural PDL rate in both groups (21.6 vs. 5.1%; 36.6 vs. 6.1%, respectively), with a more obvious increase in minimal PDL rate in the LAmbre-combined group than the Watchman-combined group (36.6 vs. 21.6%, P < 0.05).ConclusionThe Watchman and LAmbre devices were comparable in efficacy and safety for the combined procedure. The minimal PDL rate at short-term TEE follow-up was higher in the LAmbre-combined group than the Watchman-combined group.

Keywords