Long-term outcomes after echocardiography versus fluoroscopy-guided left atrial appendage closure: Is there still a role for a simplified approach?

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) represents an alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). While transoesophageal echocardiography is the current standard for guiding LAAC procedures, several centers have employed fluoroscopic guidance alone. However, data on long-term outcomes are lacking.

METHODS

A total of 536 patients with AF undergoing LAAC and with available data on long-term follow-up were included in the retrospective, single-center analysis. Outcomes of patients undergoing fluoroscopy-guided LAAC were compared with those undergoing echocardiography guided LAAC. Time-dependent analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

A total of 234 (44%) and 302 (56%) patients were treated with echocardiography and fluoroscopy guidance, respectively. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the two groups. Procedural success rates were high in both groups (97% of fluoroscopy vs. 98% of echocardiography guided procedures; p = 0.92) and rates of relevant peri-device leaks (p = 0.50) and device-related thrombus formation (p = 0.22) did not differ between groups. Median clinical follow-up time was 48 (IQR 19-73) months. Rates of all-cause mortality (p = 0.15, HR 0.83, CI 0.64-1.07) and stroke (p = 0.076, HR 2.23, CI 0.90-5.54) were comparable among groups.

CONCLUSION

LAAC with fluoroscopy guidance alone is equally safe and leads to similar clinical outcome compared to LAAC with additional echocardiography guidance.