loading page

Experience of Combined Procedure During Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure.
  • +9
  • Guillaume Domain,
  • Nicolas Dognin,
  • Gilles O'Hara,
  • Josep Rodes-Cabau,
  • Jean-Michel Paradis,
  • Camille Strubé,
  • Mathieu Bernier,
  • Kim OConnor,
  • Jonathan Beaudoin,
  • François Philippon,
  • Erwan Salaun,
  • Jean Champagne
Guillaume Domain
IUCPQ
Author Profile
Nicolas Dognin
IUCPQ
Author Profile
Gilles O'Hara
IUCPQ
Author Profile
Josep Rodes-Cabau
IUCPQ
Author Profile
Jean-Michel Paradis
IUCPQ
Author Profile
Camille Strubé
IUCPQ
Author Profile
Mathieu Bernier
IUCPQ
Author Profile
Kim OConnor
IUCPQ
Author Profile
Jonathan Beaudoin
IUCPQ
Author Profile
François Philippon
IUCPQ
Author Profile
Erwan Salaun
IUCPQ
Author Profile
Jean Champagne
IUCPQ
Author Profile

Abstract

Introduction: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative to oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication to long-term OAC. Combined strategy with percutaneous LAAC at the same time of other cardiac structural or electrophysiological procedure has emerged as an alternative to staged strategy. Aim: To describe our experience of combined LAAC procedures using Watchman™ devices. Method: All patients with combined LAAC procedure using Watchman™ (WN) devices performed from 2016-2021 were included. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of periprocedural complications and adverse events during follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint included strokes, systemic embolisms, major bleeding, and cardiovascular death. Results: Since 2016, among the 157 patients who underwent LAAC using WN devices, 16 underwent a combined strategy: 6 TEMVR (37%), 6 typical atrial flutter ablation (37%), 2 LP implantation (13%) and 2 atrial fibrillation ablation (13%). The WN device was successfully implanted in 98% and 100% for single and combined LAAC respectively (p = 0.63). Median follow-up was 13 months (IQR 25/75 3/24) in the whole cohort. Device related complications occurred in 6 out of 141 patients (4%) who underwent single LAAC and in no (0/16) patient in the combined LAAC procedure (p=ns). The procedural related complications did not differ significantly between groups (5% vs 12%, respectively in the single and combined group, p=0.1). Conclusion: Combined procedure combining LAAC using the Watchman™ devices and one other structural or electrophysiological procedure is safe and effective. Larger series are needed to confirm these results.