Medizinische Klinik III, Cardioangiologisches Centrum Bethanien, Markus Krankenhaus, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Heart Rhythm. 2013 Dec;10(12):1792-9. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.08.025. Epub 2013 Aug 22.
Currently, 2 different left atrial appendage (LAA) closure systems are available for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation but comparative data are lacking.
To prospectively compare procedural data and patient outcome for 2 contemporary LAA closure systems and to investigate an alternative antithrombotic treatment regimen in high-risk patients.
Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, with high risk for stroke, and who either had contraindication or were not willing to accept oral anticoagulation were prospectively enrolled. Watchman (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA; group A) or Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (St Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN; group B) devices were implanted. All patients received antithrombotic therapy for 6 weeks. After repeat transesophageal echocardiography, patients were switched to aspirin.
Eighty patients were enrolled. There was no statistical difference in patient characteristics in groups A and B: CHA2DS2VASC score: 4.1 ± 1.5 versus 4.5 ± 1.8; HASBLED score: 3.1 ± 1.1 versus 3.1 ± 1.1, respectively. LAA closure was achieved in 78 of 80 patients (98%) (group A: 38 of 40 [95%] vs group B: 40 of 40 [100%]). There was no difference in procedure time (group A: 48 ± 16 minutes vs group B: 47 ± 15 minutes; P = .69) and fluoroscopy time (group A: 6.0 ± 4.7 minutes vs group B: 7.3 ± 4.4 minutes; P = .25). Major complications included 1 air embolism and delayed tamponade in each group. After 6 weeks, 1 device dislodgment and 4 device-related thrombi were detected. Ninety-four percent of the patients (73 of 77) were switched to aspirin after 6 weeks. During a median follow-up of 364 days (Q1-Q3: 283-539 days), no systemic embolism occurred, but 3 patients died (heart failure: n = 2; bleeding: n = 1).
Implantation of both LAA closure devices can be performed with high success rates in high-risk patients. Postprocedural 6 weeks antithrombotic therapy followed by aspirin therapy needs to be confirmed in a larger study.
目前,有两种不同的左心耳(LAA)封堵系统可用于预防非瓣膜性心房颤动的中风,但缺乏比较数据。
前瞻性比较两种当代 LAA 封堵系统的手术数据和患者结局,并研究高危患者的替代抗血栓治疗方案。
前瞻性招募患有非瓣膜性心房颤动、中风高风险、有或无抗凝禁忌或不愿接受口服抗凝治疗的患者。植入 Watchman(波士顿科学,马萨诸塞州纳提克;A 组)或 Amplatzer 心脏塞(圣犹达医疗,明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯;B 组)装置。所有患者接受抗血栓治疗 6 周。重复经食管超声心动图检查后,患者转为阿司匹林治疗。
80 例患者入选。A、B 两组患者的临床特征无统计学差异:CHA2DS2VASC 评分:4.1±1.5 比 4.5±1.8;HASBLED 评分:3.1±1.1 比 3.1±1.1。80 例患者中有 78 例(98%)(A 组:38 例[95%]与 B 组:40 例[100%])成功实现 LAA 封堵。手术时间无差异(A 组:48±16 分钟与 B 组:47±15 分钟;P=0.69),透视时间也无差异(A 组:6.0±4.7 分钟与 B 组:7.3±4.4 分钟;P=0.25)。主要并发症包括每组 1 例空气栓塞和迟发性心包填塞。6 周后,发现 1 例器械移位和 4 例器械相关血栓。6 周后,94%的患者(73 例)转为阿司匹林治疗。中位随访 364 天(Q1-Q3:283-539 天)期间,无全身栓塞发生,但 3 例患者死亡(心力衰竭:n=2;出血:n=1)。
在高危患者中,两种 LAA 封堵装置的植入均能获得较高的成功率。术后 6 周抗血栓治疗后转为阿司匹林治疗需要在更大的研究中得到证实。