Transition from WATCHMAN generation-2.5 device to WATCHMAN FLX device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: Incidence and predictors of device-related thrombosis and short- to mid-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) not suitable for long-term anticoagulant therapy undergo percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using the WATCHMAN device. The safety and efficacy of WATCHMAN-FLX (WM-FLX) compared with WATCHMAN-2.5 (WM-2.5), particularly in Asian populations, is unknown.

METHODS

We evaluated the background, procedure, and clinical outcomes of 199 patients who underwent LAAC between September 2019 and December 2022 and compared WM-2.5 (72 patients) with WM-FLX (127 patients).

RESULTS

The mean age was 76 years, with 128 men, and 100 had nonparoxysmal AF (non-PAF). The mean CHA2DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED were 5.1, and 3.2 points, respectively. WM-FLX group demonstrated a shorter procedure time than WM-2.5 group (50 vs. 42 min, p = 0.001). The WM-FLX group demonstrated no procedural-related acute cardiac tamponade, which was significantly low (5.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.02), and a significantly higher rate of complete seal at 45-day (63% vs. 80%, p = 0.04). WM-FLX group had a significantly higher cumulative 1-year incidence of device-related thrombosis (DRT) than WM-2.5 group (3.4% vs. 7.0%, Log-rank p = 0.01). Univariate analysis identified two DRT risk factors in the WM-FLX group: non-PAF (odds ratio [OR] 7.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-48.7; p = 0.04), and 35-mm device (OR 5.13; 95% CI 1.31-19.8; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

WM-FLX significantly improved the procedural quality and safety of LAAC. However, DRT remains an important issue even in the novel LAAC device, being a hazard for patients with high DRT risk, such as having non-PAF and using 35-mm devices.