Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 19, 2026
Catheter Ablation in Combination With Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 26, 2013
Comparison of the Feasibility and Safety of First- versus Second-Generation AMPLATZER™ Occluders for Left Atrial
Baravan Al-Kassou1, Heyder Omran2
1Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
Introduction:
Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is considered an alternative to oral anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the first- and second-generation AMPLATZER Devices for LAAC, AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug (ACP) versus AMPLATZER Amulet™.
Methods:
Procedural data, such as fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and contrast-dye, as well as VARC criteria and major adverse events (MAEs) were assessed for both devices. The rate of peridevice leaks was analyzed at echocardiographic follow-up.
Results:
A total of 196 patients with AF underwent LAAC with the ACP (n = 99) or Amulet device (n = 97). The use of Amulet was associated with significantly lower fluoroscopy time (14.8 ± 7.4 min versus 10.6 ± 4.1 min; p < 0.001), lower radiation dose (4833 ± 3360 cGy⁎cm2 versus 3206 ± 2169 cGy⁎cm2; p < 0.001), and reduced amount of contrast-dye (150.2 ± 83.9 ml versus 128.8 ± 46.0 ml; p = 0.03). Furthermore, LAAC with Amulet devices resulted in lower device-resizing rates (3 versus 16 cases; p = 0.001). Peridevice leaks were less frequent in the Amulet group (12 versus 4; p = 0.03). MAE occurred in 6 ACP and 4 Amulet patients (p = 0.58).
Conclusions:
The Amulet device is associated with shorter fluoroscopy times and radiation dosages, reduced use of contrast-dye, lower recapture rates, and less peridevice leaks as compared to the ACP.
