Single-Operator Left atrial appendage Occlusion utilizing Conscious sedation TEE, Lack of Outpatient pre-imaging, and Same-day Expedited discharge (SOLO-CLOSE): A comparison with conventional approach
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 11, 2026
The WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 28, 2012
Hafez Golzarian1, Benjamin A Pasley1, Sidra R Shah1
1Department of Internal Medicine, Internal Medicine Residency Program, Mercy Health-St. Rita's Medical Center, Lima, Ohio, USA.
Background:
Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with WATCHMAN currently requires preprocedural imaging, general anesthesia, and inpatient overnight admission. We sought to facilitate simplification of LAAO.
Aims:
We describe and compare SOLO-CLOSE (single-operator LAA occlusion utilizing conscious sedation TEE, lack of outpatient pre-imaging, and same-day expedited discharge) with the conventional approach (CA).
Methods:
A single-center retrospective analysis of 163 patients undergoing LAAO between January 2017 and April 2022 was conducted. The SOLO-CLOSE protocol was enacted on December 1, 2020. Before this date, we utilized the CA. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as successful LAAO with ≤5 mm peri-device leak at time of closure. The primary safety endpoint was the composite incidence of all-cause deaths, any cerebrovascular accident (CVA), device embolization, pericardial effusion, or major postprocedure bleeding within 7 days of the index procedure. Procedure times, 7-day readmission rates, and cost analytics were collected as well.
Results:
Baseline characteristics were similar in both cohorts. Congestive heart failure (37.5% vs. 11.1%) and malignancy (28.8% vs. 12.5%) were higher in SOLO-CLOSE. Median CHA2D2SVASc score was 5 in both cohorts. The primary efficacy endpoint was met 100% in both cohorts. Primary safety endpoint was similar between cohorts (p = 0.078). Mean procedure time was 30 min shorter in SOLO-CLOSE (p < 0.01). Seven-day readmissions for SOLO-CLOSE was zero. After SOLO-CLOSE implementation, there was a 188% increase in positive contribution margin per case.
Conclusions:
The SOLO-CLOSE methodology offers similar efficacy and safety when compared to the CA, while improving clinical efficiency, reducing procedural times, and increasing economic benefit.
