open access

Vol 1, No 2 (2016)
Review article
Published online: 2016-12-02
Get Citation

Left atrial appendage closure: therapeutic option or solution?

Ewa Obońska, Iwona Świątkiewicz
·
Medical Research Journal 2016;1(2):58-67.

open access

Vol 1, No 2 (2016)
REVIEW ARTICLES
Published online: 2016-12-02

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of arrhythmia. AF increases the risk of thromboembolic complications including stroke. Stroke in patients with AF is more severe compared with patients with sinus rhythm. Long-term oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) is widely used in a large population of patients with AF to prevent arterial thromboembolic events, such as stroke and systemic embolism. However, it is well established that OAT significantly increases the risk of bleeding. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an option for stroke prophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular AF and high risk of bleeding. This paper provides an overview of recent studies that address the effectiveness and safety of LAAC using the Amplatzer Cardiac Plaque and Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System. LAAC provides a superior choice of treatment in patients with absolute contraindication of systemic OAT, in cases of refusal of systemic OAT by a patient, and as a complementary treatment to anticoagulation in patients with embolic events despite adequate OAT. LAAC should be also considered as a therapeutic option for patients with high thromboembolic risk and very high bleeding risk on the basis of individual risk/benefit evaluation for OAT vs. alternative methods of treatment. In general, LAAC becomes more attractive with increasing thromboembolic risk. There is a need for further studies to address the question of whether LAAC is actually the best method for preventing thromboembolism for patients with moderate/high thromboembolic risk and relatively low bleeding risk, to determine the optimum antithrombotic or antiplatelet therapy in patients who underwent LAAC, as well as to conduct direct comparative analysis of LAAC and the use of new oral anticoagulant drugs (NOAC).

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of arrhythmia. AF increases the risk of thromboembolic complications including stroke. Stroke in patients with AF is more severe compared with patients with sinus rhythm. Long-term oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) is widely used in a large population of patients with AF to prevent arterial thromboembolic events, such as stroke and systemic embolism. However, it is well established that OAT significantly increases the risk of bleeding. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an option for stroke prophylaxis in patients with nonvalvular AF and high risk of bleeding. This paper provides an overview of recent studies that address the effectiveness and safety of LAAC using the Amplatzer Cardiac Plaque and Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System. LAAC provides a superior choice of treatment in patients with absolute contraindication of systemic OAT, in cases of refusal of systemic OAT by a patient, and as a complementary treatment to anticoagulation in patients with embolic events despite adequate OAT. LAAC should be also considered as a therapeutic option for patients with high thromboembolic risk and very high bleeding risk on the basis of individual risk/benefit evaluation for OAT vs. alternative methods of treatment. In general, LAAC becomes more attractive with increasing thromboembolic risk. There is a need for further studies to address the question of whether LAAC is actually the best method for preventing thromboembolism for patients with moderate/high thromboembolic risk and relatively low bleeding risk, to determine the optimum antithrombotic or antiplatelet therapy in patients who underwent LAAC, as well as to conduct direct comparative analysis of LAAC and the use of new oral anticoagulant drugs (NOAC).

Get Citation

Keywords

atrial fibrillation, left atrial appendage closure, stroke prevention, risk of bleeding, thromboembolic risk, oral anticoagulant therapy, vitamin K antagonist, drug anticoagulants non-vitamin K antagonist, Amplatzer Cardiac Plug, Watchman system

About this article
Title

Left atrial appendage closure: therapeutic option or solution?

Journal

Medical Research Journal

Issue

Vol 1, No 2 (2016)

Article type

Review article

Pages

58-67

Published online

2016-12-02

Page views

772

Article views/downloads

1053

DOI

10.5603/MRJ.2016.0010

Bibliographic record

Medical Research Journal 2016;1(2):58-67.

Keywords

atrial fibrillation
left atrial appendage closure
stroke prevention
risk of bleeding
thromboembolic risk
oral anticoagulant therapy
vitamin K antagonist
drug anticoagulants non-vitamin K antagonist
Amplatzer Cardiac Plug
Watchman system

Authors

Ewa Obońska
Iwona Świątkiewicz

References (66)
  1. Meier B, Blaauw Y, Khattab A et al. EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion. EuroIntervention 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/europace/euu174 (2014).
  2. Zoni-Berisso M, Lercari F, Carazza T, et al. Epidemiology of atrial fibrillation: European perspective. Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 6: 213–220.
  3. Risk Factors for Stroke and Efficacy of Antithrombotic Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1994; 154(13): 1449–1457.
  4. DiMarco JP, Flaker G, Waldo AL, et al. AFFIRM Investigators. Factors affecting bleeding risk during anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: observations from the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study. Am Heart J. 2005; 149(4): 650–656.
  5. Connolly S, Ezekowitz M, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009; 361(12): 1139–1151.
  6. Patel M, Mahaffey K, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine. 2011; 365(10): 883–891.
  7. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJV, et al. ARISTOTLE Committees and Investigators. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(11): 981–992.
  8. Gage BF, Waterman AD, Shannon W, et al. Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation. JAMA. 2001; 285(22): 2864–2870.
  9. Lane DA, Lip GYH. Use of the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc and HAS-BLED scores to aid decision making for thromboprophylaxis in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2012; 126(7): 860–865.
  10. Birman-Deych E, Radford MJ, Nilasena DS, et al. Use and effectiveness of warfarin in Medicare beneficiaries with atrial fibrillation. Stroke. 2006; 37(4): 1070–1074.
  11. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. RE-LY Steering Committee and Investigators. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361(12): 1139–1151.
  12. Go AS, Hylek EM, Phillips KA, et al. Warfarin use among ambulatory patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: the anticoagulation and risk factors in atrial fibrillation (ATRIA) study. Ann Intern Med. 1999; 131(12): 927–934.
  13. Connolly SJ, Pogue J, Hart RG, et al. ACTIVE Investigators. Effect of clopidogrel added to aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(20): 2066–2078.
  14. Douketis JD. Pharmacologic properties of the new oral anticoagulants: a clinician-oriented review with a focus on perioperative management. Curr Pharm Des. 2010; 16(31): 3436–3441.
  15. Patel M, Mahaffey K, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine. 2011; 365(10): 883–891.
  16. Granger C, Alexander J, McMurray J, et al. Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine. 2011; 365(11): 981–992.
  17. Link MS, Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, et al. ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Investigators, ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Investigators, ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Investigators, ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Investigators. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(22): 2093–2104.
  18. Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Turi ZG, et al. PROTECT AF Investigators. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2009; 374(9689): 534–542.
  19. Blackshear JL, Odell JA. Appendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillation. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996; 61(2): 755–759.
  20. Fountain RB, Holmes DR, Chandrasekaran K, et al. The PROTECT AF (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic PROTECTion in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) trial. Am Heart J. 2006; 151(5): 956–961.
  21. Cruz-Gonzalez I, Martín Moreiras J, García E. Thrombus formation after left atrial appendage exclusion using an Amplatzer cardiac plug device. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 78(6): 970–973.
  22. Lammers J, Elenbaas T, Meijer A. Thrombus formation on an Amplatzer closure device after left atrial appendage closure. Eur Heart J. 2013; 34(10): 741.
  23. Fahmy P, Spencer R, Tsang M, et al. Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Atrial Fibrillation Is Safe and Effective After Intracranial or Intraocular Hemorrhage. Can J Cardiol. 2016; 32(3): 349–354.
  24. Camm AJ, Lip GYH, De Caterina R, et al. ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines-CPG, Document Reviewers, ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG). 2012 focused update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: an update of the 2010 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Developed with the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(21): 2719–2747.
  25. Meier B, Blaauw Y, Khattab AA, et al. Document Reviewers. EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion. EuroIntervention. 2015; 10(9): 1109–1125.
  26. Costa F, Ariotti S, Valgimigli M, et al. Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), Grupa Robocza Europejskiego Towarzystwa Kardiologicznego (ESC), Europejskie Stowarzyszenie Chirurgii Serca i Klatki Piersiowej (EACTS) do spraw rewaskularyzacji mięśnia sercowego, European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines, EACTS Clinical Guidelines Committee, Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, Authors/Task Force members. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(37): 2541–2619.
  27. Meschia JF, Bushnell C, Boden-Albala B, et al. American Heart Association Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Functional Genomics and Translational Biology, Council on Hypertension. Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014; 45(12): 3754–3832.
  28. Main M, Fan D, Reddy V, et al. Assessment of Device-Related Thrombus and Associated Clinical Outcomes With the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (from the PROTECT-AF Trial). The American Journal of Cardiology. 2016; 117(7): 1127–1134.
  29. Tzikas A, Shakir S, Gafoor S, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: multicentre experience with the AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug. EuroIntervention. 2016; 11(10): 1170–1179.
  30. Urena M, Rodés-Cabau J, Freixa X, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with the AMPLATZER cardiac plug device in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and contraindications to anticoagulation therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(2): 96–102.
  31. Lam YY, Yip GWK, Yu CM, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with AMPLATZER cardiac plug for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: initial Asia-Pacific experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 79(5): 794–800.
  32. Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Turi ZG, et al. PROTECT AF Investigators. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2009; 374(9689): 534–542.
  33. Reddy VY, Doshi SK, Sievert H, et al. PROTECT AF Investigators. 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.
  34. Reddy VY, Sievert H, Halperin J, et al. PROTECT AF Steering Committee and Investigators. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014; 312(19): 1988–1998.
  35. Reddy VY, Holmes D, Doshi SK, et al. Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: results from the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with AF (PROTECT AF) clinical trial and the Continued Access Registry. Circulation. 2011; 123(4): 417–424.
  36. Khumri TM, Thibodeau JB, Main ML. Transesophageal echocardiographic diagnosis of left atrial appendage occluder device infection. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2008; 9(4): 565–566.
  37. Cardona L, Ana G, Luísa B, et al. Thrombus formation on a left atrial appendage closure device. Circulation. 2011; 124(14): 1595–1596.
  38. Gasparini M, Ceriotti C, Bragato R. Huge left atrial thrombus after left atrial appendage occlusion with a Watchman device. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(16): 1998.
  39. Plicht B, Konorza TFM, Kahlert P, et al. Risk factors for thrombus formation on the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug after left atrial appendage occlusion. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6(6): 606–613.
  40. Massarenti L, Yilmaz A. Incomplete endothelialization of left atrial appendage occlusion device 10 months after implantation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012; 23(12): 1384–1385.
  41. Reddy VY, Sievert H, Halperin J, et al. PROTECT AF Steering Committee and Investigators. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014; 312(19): 1988–1998.
  42. Reddy VY, Doshi SK, Sievert H, et al. PROTECT AF Investigators. 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.
  43. Tagalakis V, Blostein M, Robinson-Cohen C, et al. The effect of anticoagulants on cancer risk and survival: systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2007; 33(4): 358–368.
  44. Reddy VY, Holmes D, Doshi SK, et al. Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: results from the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with AF (PROTECT AF) clinical trial and the Continued Access Registry. Circulation. 2011; 123(4): 417–424.
  45. Calkins H, Brugada J, Packer DL, et al. Heart Rhythm Society, European Heart Rhythm Association, European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society, American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), European Cardiac Arrhythmia Scoiety (ECAS), American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert Consensus Statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for personnel, policy, procedures and follow-up. A report of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) Task Force on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 2007; 4(6): 816–861.
  46. Gangireddy SR, Halperin JL, Fuster V, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: an assessment of net clinical benefit. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(21): 2700–2708.
  47. Reddy VY, Holmes D, Doshi SK, et al. Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: results from the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with AF (PROTECT AF) clinical trial and the Continued Access Registry. Circulation. 2011; 123(4): 417–424.
  48. Holmes DR, Kar S, Price MJ, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(1): 1–12.
  49. Boersma LVA, Schmidt B, Betts TR, et al. EWOLUTION: Design of a registry to evaluate real-world clinical outcomes in patients with AF and high stroke risk-treated with the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure technology. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 88(3): 460–465.
  50. Boersma LVA, Schmidt B, Betts TR, et al. EWOLUTION investigators. Implant success and safety of left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device: peri-procedural outcomes from the EWOLUTION registry. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(31): 2465–2474.
  51. Holmes DR, Kar S, Price MJ, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(1): 1–12.
  52. Chun KR, Bordignon S, Urban V, et al. Left atrial appendage closure followed by 6 weeks of antithrombotic therapy: a prospective single-center experience. Heart Rhythm. 2013; 10(12): 1792–1799.
  53. Bergmann MW. New technical and anticoagulation aspects for left atrial appendage closure using the Watchman device in patients not taking VKA. EuroIntervention. 2013; 9: 463–468.
  54. 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.
  55. Koifman E, Lipinski MJ, Ricardo O et al. Comparison of Watchman device with new oral anti-coagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: A network meta-analysis. MedStar Cardiovascular Research Network, MedStar Heart and Vascular Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA. www.elsevier.com/locate/ijcard.
  56. Reddy V, Möbius-Winkler S, Miller M, et al. Left Atrial Appendage Closure With the Watchman Device in Patients With a Contraindication for Oral Anticoagulation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013; 61(25): 2551–2556.
  57. Aslan O, Yaylali YT, Yildirim S, et al. Dabigatran Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation: Multicenter Experience in Turkey. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2016; 22(2): 147–152.
  58. Graham DJ, Reichman ME, Wernecke M, et al. Cardiovascular, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly Medicare patients treated with dabigatran or warfarin for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2015; 131(2): 157–164.
  59. Ho CW, Ho MH, Chan PH, et al. Ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage with aspirin, dabigatran, and warfarin: impact of quality of anticoagulation control. Stroke. 2015; 46(1): 23–30.
  60. Ho JCS, Chang AM, Yan BP, et al. Dabigatran compared with warfarin for stroke prevention with atrial fibrillation: experience in Hong Kong. Clin Cardiol. 2012; 35(12): E40–E45.
  61. Hori M, Matsumoto M, Tanahashi N, et al. J-ROCKET AF study investigators. Rivaroxaban vs. warfarin in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation – the J-ROCKET AF study –. Circ J. 2012; 76(9): 2104–2111.
  62. Labaf A, Carlwe M, Svensson PJ. Efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants in clinical practice: a report from three centers in Sweden. Thromb J. 2014; 12(1): 29.
  63. Laliberté F, Cloutier M, Nelson WW, et al. Real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban and warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014; 30(7): 1317–1325.
  64. Larsen TB, Rasmussen LH, Skjøth F, et al. Efficacy and safety of dabigatran etexilate and warfarin in "real-world" patients with atrial fibrillation: a prospective nationwide cohort study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(22): 2264–2273.
  65. The official website of Boston Scientific.
  66. The official website of St. Jude Medical.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl