Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) presents many technical complex features, and it is often performed under the intraprocedural surveillance of a product specialist (PS). Our aim is to assess whether LAAO is equally safe and effective when performed in high-volume centers without PS support. Methods: Intraprocedural results and long-term outcome were retrospectively assessed in 247 patients who underwent LAAO without intraprocedural PS monitoring between January 2013 and January 2022 at three different hospitals. This cohort was then matched to a population who underwent LAAO with PS surveillance. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality plus nonfatal ischemic stroke occurrence at 1 year. Results: Of the 247 study patients, procedural success was achieved in 243 patients (98.4%), with only 1 (0.4%) intraprocedural death. After matching, we did not identify any significant difference between the two groups in terms of procedural time (70 ± 19 min vs. 81 ± 30 min, p = 0.106), procedural success (98.4% vs. 96.7%, p = 0.242), and procedure-related ischemic stroke (0.8% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.653). Compared to the matched cohort, a significant higher dosage of contrast was used during procedures without specialist supervision (98 ± 19 vs. 43 ± 21, p < 0.001), but this was not associated with a higher postprocedural acute kidney injury occurrence (0.8% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.56). At 1 year, the primary and the secondary endpoints occurred in 21 (9%) and 11 (4%) of our cohort, respectively. Kaplan–Meier curves showed no significant difference in both primary (p = 0.85) and secondary (p = 0.74) endpoint occurrence according to intraprocedural PS monitoring. Conclusions: Our results show that LAAO, despite the absence of intraprocedural PS monitoring, remains a long-term safe and effective procedure, when performed in high-volume centers.

Left atrial appendage occlusion in the absence of intraprocedural product specialist monitoring: is it time to proceed alone? Results from a multicenter real-world experience / Margonato, D.; Rizza, V.; Ingallina, G.; Preda, A.; Ancona, F.; Belli, M.; Godino, C.; Agricola, E.; Della Bella, P.; Grasso, C.; Contarini, M.; Mazzone, P.. - In: FRONTIERS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE. - ISSN 2297-055X. - 10:(2023). [10.3389/fcvm.2023.1172005]

Left atrial appendage occlusion in the absence of intraprocedural product specialist monitoring: is it time to proceed alone? Results from a multicenter real-world experience

Margonato D.
Primo
;
Rizza V.
Secondo
;
Preda A.;Agricola E.;
2023-01-01

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) presents many technical complex features, and it is often performed under the intraprocedural surveillance of a product specialist (PS). Our aim is to assess whether LAAO is equally safe and effective when performed in high-volume centers without PS support. Methods: Intraprocedural results and long-term outcome were retrospectively assessed in 247 patients who underwent LAAO without intraprocedural PS monitoring between January 2013 and January 2022 at three different hospitals. This cohort was then matched to a population who underwent LAAO with PS surveillance. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular mortality plus nonfatal ischemic stroke occurrence at 1 year. Results: Of the 247 study patients, procedural success was achieved in 243 patients (98.4%), with only 1 (0.4%) intraprocedural death. After matching, we did not identify any significant difference between the two groups in terms of procedural time (70 ± 19 min vs. 81 ± 30 min, p = 0.106), procedural success (98.4% vs. 96.7%, p = 0.242), and procedure-related ischemic stroke (0.8% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.653). Compared to the matched cohort, a significant higher dosage of contrast was used during procedures without specialist supervision (98 ± 19 vs. 43 ± 21, p < 0.001), but this was not associated with a higher postprocedural acute kidney injury occurrence (0.8% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.56). At 1 year, the primary and the secondary endpoints occurred in 21 (9%) and 11 (4%) of our cohort, respectively. Kaplan–Meier curves showed no significant difference in both primary (p = 0.85) and secondary (p = 0.74) endpoint occurrence according to intraprocedural PS monitoring. Conclusions: Our results show that LAAO, despite the absence of intraprocedural PS monitoring, remains a long-term safe and effective procedure, when performed in high-volume centers.
2023
atrial fibrillation
cardiovascular mortality
embolic prevention
intraprocedural monitoring
left atrial appendage closure
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Left atrial appendage occlusion in the absence of intraprocedural product specialist monitoring_ is it time to proceed alone_ Results from a multicenter real-world experience.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: PDF editoriale (versione pubblicata dall'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.28 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.28 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/149718
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact