For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
18
views
12
references
 Top references
cited by
111
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      518
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Device-Related Thrombus After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In patients with atrial fibrillation, left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device prevents thromboembolism from the left atrial appendage; however, thrombus may form on the left atrial face of the device, and then potentially embolize. Herein, we studied the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcome of device-related thrombus (DRT) using a large series of clinical trial cohorts of patients undergoing Watchman implantation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial.

          Vivek Reddy, Horst Sievert, Jonathan S. Halperin … (2014)
          While effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), warfarin is limited by a narrow therapeutic profile, a need for lifelong coagulation monitoring, and multiple drug and diet interactions.
          Article 0 comments Cited 219 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: results from the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with AF (PROTECT AF) clinical trial and the Continued Access Registry.

            Petr Neuzil, Saibal Kar, Swarnalatha Y Reddy … (2011)
            The Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With AF (PROTECT AF) randomized trial compared left atrial appendage closure against warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with CHADS₂ ≥1. Although the study met the primary efficacy end point of being noninferior to warfarin therapy for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism/cardiovascular death, there was a significantly higher risk of complications, predominantly pericardial effusion and procedural stroke related to air embolism. Here, we report the influence of experience on the safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. The study cohort for this analysis included patients in the PROTECT AF trial who underwent attempted device left atrial appendage closure (n=542 patients) and those from a subsequent nonrandomized registry of patients undergoing Watchman implantation (Continued Access Protocol [CAP] Registry; n=460 patients). The safety end point included bleeding- and procedure-related events (pericardial effusion, stroke, device embolization). There was a significant decline in the rate of procedure- or device-related safety events within 7 days of the procedure across the 2 studies, with 7.7% and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (P=0.007), and between the first and second halves of PROTECT AF and CAP, with 10.0%, 5.5%, and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (P=0.006). The rate of serious pericardial effusion within 7 days of implantation, which had made up >50% of the safety events in PROTECT AF, was lower in the CAP Registry (5.0% versus 2.2%, respectively; P=0.019). There was a similar experience-related improvement in procedure-related stroke (0.9% versus 0%, respectively; P=0.039). Finally, the functional impact of these safety events, as defined by significant disability or death, was statistically superior in the Watchman group compared with the warfarin group in PROTECT AF. This remained true whether significance was defined as a change in the modified Rankin score of ≥1, ≥2, or ≥3 (1.8 versus 4.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.82; 1.5 versus 3.7 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.82; and 1.4 versus 3.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.88, respectively). As with all interventional procedures, there is a significant improvement in the safety of Watchman left atrial appendage closure with increased operator experience. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00129545.
            Article 0 comments Cited 183 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation: 2.3-Year Follow-up of the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) Trial.

              Swarnalatha Y Reddy, Horst Sievert, S. Rosendahl Huber … (2013)
              The multicenter PROTECT AF study (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) was conducted to determine whether percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with a filter device (Watchman) was noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Patients (n=707) with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor (age >75 years, hypertension, heart failure, diabetes, or prior stroke/transient ischemic attack) were randomized to either the Watchman device (n=463) or continued warfarin (n=244) in a 2:1 ratio. After device implantation, warfarin was continued for ≈45 days, followed by clopidogrel for 4.5 months and lifelong aspirin. Study discontinuation rates were 15.3% (71/463) and 22.5% (55/244) for the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively. The time in therapeutic range for the warfarin group was 66%. The composite primary efficacy end point included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death, and the primary analysis was by intention to treat. After 1588 patient-years of follow-up (mean 2.3±1.1 years), the primary efficacy event rates were 3.0% and 4.3% (percent per 100 patient-years) in the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively (relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.44%-1.30% per year), which met the criteria for noninferiority (probability of noninferiority >0.999). There were more primary safety events in the Watchman group (5.5% per year; 95% confidence interval, 4.2%-7.1% per year) than in the control group (3.6% per year; 95% confidence interval, 2.2%-5.3% per year; relative risk, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-2.70). The "local" strategy of left atrial appendage closure is noninferior to "systemic" anticoagulation with warfarin. PROTECT AF has, for the first time, implicated the left atrial appendage in the pathogenesis of stroke in atrial fibrillation. : URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00129545.
              Article 0 comments Cited 157 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Circulation
                Title: Circulation
                Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                ISSN (Electronic): 1524-4539
                ISSN (Print): 0009-7322
                Publication date (Electronic): August 28 2018
                Volume: 138
                Issue: 9
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (S.R.D., V.Y.R.).
                [2 ] Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA (S.K.).
                [3 ] Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (D.R.H.).
                [4 ] Pacific Heart Institute, Santa Monica, CA (S.K.D.).
                [5 ] Arizona Heart Rhythm Center, Phoenix (V.S.).
                [6 ] Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, CA (D.N.G.).
                [7 ] Delray Medical, Delray Beach, FL (B.M.).
                [8 ] Boston Scientific Corporation, St. Paul, MN (N.T.G.).
                [9 ] University of Missouri-Kansas City (M.L.M.).
                Article
                Publisher Item ID: CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035090
                DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035090
                PubMed ID: 29752398
                SO-VID: 3b9f67b0-3af5-4fcc-9e0a-350fb6f6e332
                History

                Keywords: atrial appendage,atrial fibrillation,percutaneous coronary intervention,stroke,thrombosis
                Data availability:
                Keywords: atrial appendage, atrial fibrillation, percutaneous coronary intervention, stroke, thrombosis

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content518

                See all similar

                Cited by111

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors376

                See all reference authors