Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices

Area of Science:

• Cardiology
• Interventional Cardiology
• Medical Devices

Background:

• Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a guideline-recommended alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who are ineligible for OAC.
• This study directly compares the real-world performance of two contemporary LAAC devices.

Purpose of the Study:

• To directly compare the safety and efficacy of two contemporary left atrial appendage closure devices in a real-world patient population.
• To evaluate procedural success rates and complication profiles of Watchman™ and Amplatzer™ Amulet™ devices.

Main Methods:

• A retrospective analysis of 189 patients undergoing LAAC between 2010 and 2017 across two centers.
• Patients received either a Watchman™ device (n=148) or an Amplatzer™ Amulet™ device (n=34).
• Data collected included baseline characteristics, procedural details, and in-hospital and 6-month follow-up event rates.

Main Results:

• Both devices achieved high successful implantation rates (Watchman™: 96.1%, Amplatzer™ Amulet™: 97.1%).
• Major access site bleedings were significantly more frequent with the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ device (8.9% vs. 1.4%, p=0.046).
• No in-hospital thromboembolic events occurred; peri-device leaks and thromboembolic events at 6-month follow-up were uncommon and similar between groups.

Conclusions:

• Both contemporary LAAC devices, Watchman™ and Amplatzer™ Amulet™, demonstrate high procedural success rates.
• Complications during follow-up were rare and comparable between the two devices, suggesting similar long-term safety profiles.