Heart rhythm · 2021
Transcatheter embolic coils to treat peridevice leaks after left atrial appendage closure.
СтатьяVideo-Audio MediaНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Musikantow Daniel R, Shivamurthy Poojita, Croft Lori B, Kawamura Iwanari, Turagam Mohit K, Whang William, Dukkipati Srinivas R, Goldman Martin E, Reddy Vivek Y
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has proven to be an effective alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation in the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. In a minority of patients, inadequate seal may result in persistent peridevice flow and inability of the appendage to fully thrombose, thereby representing a potential source for thromboembolism.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to study the use of endovascular coiling of the appendage to address persistent peridevice leak in patients undergoing LAAC with the Watchman device.
METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center analysis involving patients who underwent placement of a LAAC device and returned for endovascular coiling to address persistent device leak between 2018 and 2020. Baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, and follow-up echocardiograms were analyzed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of this technique.
RESULTS: Patients (N = 20) were identified with a mean leak size of 3.8 ± 1.3 mm (range 2.5-7 mm), all of whom had a non-thrombosed appendage. Acute procedural success was achieved in 95% of patients. Complete or significant reduction in flow beyond the LAAC device was achieved in 61% and 33% of patients, respectively. The 1 procedure-related adverse event was a pericardial effusion before coil deployment, requiring percutaneous drainage.
CONCLUSION: The clinical impact of residual peridevice leak post-Watchman implantation is a matter of continuing investigation. However, appendage coiling represents a new therapeutic tool to address this potential source for thromboembolism. Further studies should address the clinical impact of this technique, including the safety of discontinuing anticoagulation after successful coiling.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to study the use of endovascular coiling of the appendage to address persistent peridevice leak in patients undergoing LAAC with the Watchman device.
METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center analysis involving patients who underwent placement of a LAAC device and returned for endovascular coiling to address persistent device leak between 2018 and 2020. Baseline characteristics, procedural outcomes, and follow-up echocardiograms were analyzed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of this technique.
RESULTS: Patients (N = 20) were identified with a mean leak size of 3.8 ± 1.3 mm (range 2.5-7 mm), all of whom had a non-thrombosed appendage. Acute procedural success was achieved in 95% of patients. Complete or significant reduction in flow beyond the LAAC device was achieved in 61% and 33% of patients, respectively. The 1 procedure-related adverse event was a pericardial effusion before coil deployment, requiring percutaneous drainage.
CONCLUSION: The clinical impact of residual peridevice leak post-Watchman implantation is a matter of continuing investigation. However, appendage coiling represents a new therapeutic tool to address this potential source for thromboembolism. Further studies should address the clinical impact of this technique, including the safety of discontinuing anticoagulation after successful coiling.