Vol 26, No 5 (2019)
Original articles — Clinical cardiology
Published online: 2018-04-25

open access

Page views 4311
Article views/downloads 1965
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Impact of left atrial appendage closure on cardiac functional and structural remodeling: A difference-in-difference analysis of propensity score matched samples

Quang Tan Phan12, Seung-Yong Shin1, Ik-Sung Cho1, Wang-Soo Lee1, Hoyoun Won1, Saima Sharmin1, Dong-Young Lee3, Tae-Ho Kim1, Chee-Jeong Kim1, Sang-Wook Kim1
Pubmed: 29718529
Cardiol J 2019;26(5):519-528.


Background: Although the safety and efficacy of left atrial (LA) appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients have been well documented in randomized controlled trials and real-world experience, there are limited data in the literature about the impact of LAAC on cardiac remodeling. The aim of the study was to examine the impact of LAAC on cardiac functional and structural remodeling in NVAF patients. Methods: Between March 2014 and November 2016, 47 NVAF patients who underwent LAAC were included in this study (LAAC group). A control group (non-LAAC group) was formed from 141 NVAF patients without LAAC using propensity score matching. The difference-in-difference analysis was used to evaluate the difference in cardiac remodeling between the two groups at baseline and follow-up evaluations. Results: The LAAC group had a larger increase in LA dimension, volume and volume index than the non-LAAC group (+3.9 mm, p = 0.001; +9.7 mL, p = 0.006 and +5.9 mL/m2, p = 0.011, respectively). Besides, a significant increase in E and E/e’ ratio was also observed in the LAAC group (+14.6 cm/s, p = 0.002 and +2.3, p = 0.028, respectively). Compared with the non-LAAC group, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and fractional shortening decreased in LAAC patients, but were statistically insignificant (–3.5%, p = 0.109 and –2.0%, p = 0.167, respectively). Conclusions: There were significant increases in LA size and LV filling pressure among NVAF patients after LAAC. These impacts of LAAC on cardiac functional and structural remodeling may have some clinical implications that need to be addressed in future studies.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Di Minno MN, Ambrosino P, Dello Russo A, et al. Prevalence of left atrial thrombus in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Thromb Haemost. 2016; 115(3): 663–677.
  2. Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991; 22(8): 983–988.
  3. Yaghi S, Song C, Gray WA, et al. Left atrial appendage function and stroke risk. Stroke. 2015; 46(12): 3554–3559.
  4. Sherwood M, Nessel C, Hellkamp A, et al. Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Rivaroxaban or Warfarin. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66(21): 2271–2281.
  5. Reddy VY, Doshi SK, Sievert H, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation: 2.3-Year Follow-up of the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) Trial. Circulation. 2013; 127(6): 720–729.
  6. Maura G, Blotière PO, Bouillon K, et al. Comparison of the short-term risk of bleeding and arterial thromboembolic events in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients newly treated with dabigatran or rivaroxaban versus vitamin K antagonists: a French nationwide propensity-matched cohort study. Circulation. 2015; 132(13): 1252–1260.
  7. Belgaid DR, Khan Z, Zaidi M, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of the watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: The PREVAIL trial. Int J Cardiol. 2016; 219: 177–179.
  8. Reddy VY, Möbius-Winkler S, Miller MA, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device in patients with a contraindication for oral anticoagulation: the ASAP study (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(25): 2551–2556.
  9. Holmes D, Doshi S, Kar S, et al. Left atrial appendage closure as an alternative to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(24): 2614–2623.
  10. DeSimone CV, Gaba P, Tri J, et al. A review of the relevant embryology, pathohistology, and anatomy of the left atrial appendage for the invasive cardiac electrophysiologist. J Atr Fibrillation. 2015; 8(2): 1129–1187.
  11. Hara H, Virmani R, Holmes DR, et al. Is the left atrial appendage more than a simple appendage? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 74(2): 234–242.
  12. Fastner C, Behnes M, Sartorius B, et al. Left atrial appendage morphology, echocardiographic characterization, procedural data and in-hospital outcome of patients receiving left atrial appendage occlusion device implantation: a prospective observational study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2016; 16: 25.
  13. Hoit BD, Shao Y, Tsai LM, et al. Altered left atrial compliance after atrial appendectomy. Influence on left atrial and ventricular filling. Circ Res. 1993; 72(1): 167–175.
  14. Beigel R, Wunderlich NC, Ho SY, et al. The left atrial appendage: anatomy, function, and noninvasive evaluation. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014; 7(12): 1251–1265.
  15. Al-Saady NM, Obel OA, Camm AJ. Left atrial appendage: structure, function, and role in thromboembolism. Heart. 1999; 82(5): 547–554.
  16. Majunke N, Sandri M, Adams V, et al. Atrial and brain natriuretic peptide secretion after percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage with the watchman device. J Invasive Cardiol. 2015; 27(10): 448–452.
  17. Luani B, Rauwolf T, Groscheck T, et al. Serial assessment of natriuretic peptides in patients undergoing interventional closure of the left atrial appendage. Heart Lung Circ. 2017 [Epub ahead of print].
  18. Meier B, Blaauw Y, Khattab AA, et al. EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion. EuroIntervention. 2015; 10(9): 1109–1125.
  19. Nagueh SF, Smiseth OA, Appleton CP, et al. Recommendations for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function by Echocardiography: An Update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016; 29(4): 277–314.
  20. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015; 28(1): 1–39.e14.
  21. Jiamsripong P, Honda T, Reuss CS, et al. Three methods for evaluation of left atrial volume. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2008; 9(3): 351–355.
  22. Dimick JB, Ryan AM. Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: the difference-in-differences approach. JAMA. 2014; 312(22): 2401–2402.
  23. Platt RW, Schisterman EF, Cole SR. Time-modified confounding. Am J Epidemiol. 2009; 170(6): 687–694.
  24. Panikker S, Lord J, Jarman JWE, et al. Outcomes and costs of left atrial appendage closure from randomized controlled trial and real-world experience relative to oral anticoagulation. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(46): 3470–3482.
  25. Reddy VY, Gibson DN, Kar S, et al. Post-Approval U.S. Experience With Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 69(3): 253–261.
  26. Spencer RJ, DeJong P, Fahmy P, et al. Changes in left atrial appendage dimensions following volume loading during percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(15): 1935–1941.
  27. Tabata T, Oki T, Yamada H, et al. Role of left atrial appendage in left atrial reservoir function as evaluated by left atrial appendage clamping during cardiac surgery. Am J Cardiol. 1998; 81(3): 327–332.
  28. Coisne A, Pilato R, Brigadeau F, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure improves left atrial mechanical function through Frank-Starling mechanism. Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14(5): 710–716.
  29. Luani B, Groscheck T, Genz C, et al. Left atrial enlargement and clinical considerations in patients with or without a residual interatrial shunt after closure of the left atrial appendage with the WATCHMAN™-device. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017; 17(1): 294.
  30. Nagarakanti R, Ezekowitz M. Diastolic dysfunction and atrial fibrillation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2008; 22(2): 111–118.
  31. Traversi E, Cobelli F, Pozzoli M. Doppler echocardiography reliably predicts pulmonary artery wedge pressure in patients with chronic heart failure even when atrial fibrillation is present. Eur J Heart Fail. 2001; 3(2): 173–181.
  32. Kusunose K, Yamada H, Nishio S, et al. Clinical utility of single-beat E/e' obtained by simultaneous recording of flow and tissue Doppler velocities in atrial fibrillation with preserved systolic function. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009; 2(10): 1147–1156.
  33. Kim TH, Shim C, Park J, et al. Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction is associated with atrial remodeling and risk or presence of stroke in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. J Cardiol. 2016; 68(2): 104–109.
  34. El Aouar LM, Meyerfreud D, Magalhães P, et al. Relationship between left atrial volume and diastolic dysfunction in 500 Brazilian patients. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2013; 101(1): 52–58.
  35. Pritchett A, Mahoney D, Jacobsen S, et al. Diastolic dysfunction and left atrial volume. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45(1): 87–92.
  36. Hammoudi N, Achkar M, Laveau F, et al. Left atrial volume predicts abnormal exercise left ventricular filling pressure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2014; 16(10): 1089–1095.