Watchman Occlusion in Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Larger Left Atrial Appendages With Greater Residual Leak.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare patients with and without long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) undergoing Watchman left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion.

BACKGROUND

An increased burden of atrial fibrillation is associated with progressive left atrial remodeling and enlargement.

METHODS

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) measures of LAA ostial diameter and depth, device compression, and residual leak were evaluated in 101 consecutive Watchman cases. The patients were categorized into LSPAF (n = 48) or non-LSPAF (n = 53) groups and compared.

RESULTS

The average LAA ostial diameter for LSPAF versus non-LSPAF by TEE omniplane at 0° was 21.1 ± 4.1 mm versus 18.2 ± 3.6 mm (p = 0.0002); at 45° was 18.7 ± 3.4 mm versus 16.3 ± 3.1 mm (p = 0.0004); at 90° was 19.6 ± 3.8 mm versus 16.2 ± 3.4 mm (p = 0.00001); and at 135° was 21.0 ± 4.1 mm versus 18.0 ± 4.1 mm (p = 0.0005). The average LAA depth for LSPAF versus non-LSPAF by TEE at 0° was 28.1 ± 6.4 mm versus 25.2 ± 4.9 mm (p = 0.02); at 45° was 27.9 ± 5.8 mm versus 25.1 ± 4.3 mm (p = 0.007); at 90° was 27.2 ± 5.2 mm versus 22.8 ± 3.7 mm (p = 0.0001); and at 135° was 25.6 ± 5.4 mm versus 21.5 ± 3.8 mm (p = 0.0001). In successfully treated patients, 77% of the LSPAF group received larger device (27, 30, or 33 mm) implants versus only 46% in the non-LSPAF group (p = 0.003). While both groups had similar rates of moderate (3 to 5 mm) leaks at implant (2% vs. 0%; p = 0.14), 27% of the LSPAF vs. 4% of the non-LSPAF group had moderate leaks (p = 0.04) on 6-week follow-up TEE.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with LSPAF have significantly larger LAA sizes, require larger devices, and have more residual leak on follow-up TEE. LSPAF may represent a higher risk group that warrants more stringent long-term follow-up.