CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Percutaneous LAA Occlusion

Abstract

Recommended Article

Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure 2015 ACC/HRS/SCAI Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Device Societal Overview Clinical Impact of Residual Leaks Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Insights From the NCDR LAAO Registry Dabigatran dual therapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention in atrial fibrillation patients with or without acute coronary syndrome: a subgroup analysis from the RE-DUAL PCI trial Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: the Munich consensus document on definitions, endpoints, and data collection requirements for clinical studies Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial An artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation during sinus rhythm: a retrospective analysis of outcome prediction EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – an update
|<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>|

Original Research2020 Jun 12;16(2):e173-e180.

JOURNAL：Eurointervention. Article Link

Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure

C Kleinecke, M Fuerholz, E Buffle et al. Keywords: left atrial appendage closure; LAAC; TSP or PFO/ASD access; outcome

ABSTRACT

AIMS - The aim of this study was to compare the periprocedural and late clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with AMPLATZER devices by access through transseptal puncture (TSP) versus a patent foramen ovale (PFO) or an atrial septal defect (ASD).


METHODS AND RESULTS - Between 2009 and 2018, 578 consecutive patients underwent LAAC via TSP or PFO/ASD access in three centres. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 246 (TSP) versus 91 (PFO/ASD) patients were compared using the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death and the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleedings at follow-up. Mean age was 75.2±8.7 (TSP) vs 74.4±10.9 (PFO/ASD) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5±1.6 vs 4.3±1.4 and HAS-BLED score 3.3±1.0 vs 3.3±0.9. Device success (97.6% vs 97.8%, p=0.90) was similar. After 2.5±1.4 vs 2.6±1.6 years, clinical efficacy (46/603, 7.6% [TSP] vs 21/233, 9.0% [PFO/ASD], hazard ratio [HR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.85, p=0.54) and safety (24/603, 4.0% vs 11/233, 4.7%; HR 1.4; 95% CI: 0.52-3.6, p=0.49) did not differ.


CONCLUSIONS - Use of a PFO/ASD access for LAAC with AMPLATZER devices offers similar periprocedural and late clinical outcomes to TSP. Simultaneous PFO/ASD closure for an additional protective benefit does not increase risk.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top