Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2025

The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Delayed Pericardial Effusion Following Left Atrial Appendage Closure: A 5-Year Single-Center Experience
Akhil Mogalapalli, Sundeep Kumar, Tabitha Lobo
1University Hospitals, Cleveland Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Lakeside 3rd floor, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA. Steven.Filby@UHhospitals.org.
Background:
Though uncommon, pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade are serious complications of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). There are few data related to delayed pericardial effusions from this procedure.
Methods:
This is a single-center prospective analysis of 369 patients who underwent LAAC from December 2016 to March 2022 at a large teaching hospital. We compared patients who developed effusion (n = 5) to patients who did not (n = 364) to determine if there were any factors that predispose patients to developing acute (AEs) or delayed pericardial effusions (DEs). We compared patient characteristics, procedural data, and complications. Unadjusted, stepwise multivariate logistic regression was performed.
Results:
A total of 369 patients underwent LAAC. Of these, 5 patients (1.4%) developed pericardial effusion. Patients in both groups (pericardial effusion vs non-effusion) had similar patient and procedural characteristics. Patients in both groups were older (mean age, 78.4 ± 7.8 years in the effusion group vs 76.3 ± 8.5 years in the non-effusion group; P=.50) and white (60% in the effusion group vs 90.1% in the non-effusion group). CHA2DS2-VASc (4.2 ± 1.1 vs 4.5 ± 1.4; P=.67) and HAS-BLED (3.4 ± 0.5 vs 3.7 ± 0.9; P=.53) scores were similar in the effusion group vs the non-effusion group, respectively. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common procedural indication in both groups (80% in the effusion group vs 53.6% in the non-effusion group; P=.23). The majority of the patients in both groups had successful implantation in the first attempt, with the 27-mm device the most commonly used size. There was no significant difference in procedural duration (67 minutes in the effusion group vs 75 minutes in the non-effusion group; P=.16). Among patients who received the Watchman Legacy device, 2 patients developed AEs and no patients had DEs. Of those receiving the Watchman FLX device, 1 patient developed AE and 2 patients developed DEs. All of the patients with effusions had successful recovery.
Conclusion:
In this 5-year, single-center experience, DEs were uncommon and potentially related to LAA device anchor microperforation. No statistically significant risk factors predisposing patients to pericardial effusions were identified in our analysis.
Related Concept Videos
Pericarditis III: Medical Management
Pericarditis II: Clinical Features and Diagnostic Tests
Pericarditis I: Introduction
Cardiac Catheterization II: Right Heart Catheterization
Rheumatic Heart Disease I: Introduction
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy

