Watchman Occlusion in Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Larger Left Atrial Appendages With Greater Residual Leak

Matthew S. Glassy, William Wung, Sarah Westcott, Thomas W R Smith, Dali Fan, Jason H Rogers, Gagan Singh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to compare patients with and without long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF)undergoing Watchman left atrial appendage (LAA)occlusion. Background: An increased burden of atrial fibrillation is associated with progressive left atrial remodeling and enlargement. Methods: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)measures of LAA ostial diameter and depth, device compression, and residual leak were evaluated in 101 consecutive Watchman cases. The patients were categorized into LSPAF (n = 48)or non-LSPAF (n = 53)groups and compared. Results: The average LAA ostial diameter for LSPAF versus non-LSPAF by TEE omniplane at 0° was 21.1 ± 4.1 mm versus 18.2 ± 3.6 mm (p = 0.0002); at 45° was 18.7 ± 3.4 mm versus 16.3 ± 3.1 mm (p = 0.0004); at 90° was 19.6 ± 3.8 mm versus 16.2 ± 3.4 mm (p = 0.00001); and at 135° was 21.0 ± 4.1 mm versus 18.0 ± 4.1 mm (p = 0.0005). The average LAA depth for LSPAF versus non-LSPAF by TEE at 0° was 28.1 ± 6.4 mm versus 25.2 ± 4.9 mm (p = 0.02); at 45° was 27.9 ± 5.8 mm versus 25.1 ± 4.3 mm (p = 0.007); at 90° was 27.2 ± 5.2 mm versus 22.8 ± 3.7 mm (p = 0.0001); and at 135° was 25.6 ± 5.4 mm versus 21.5 ± 3.8 mm (p = 0.0001). In successfully treated patients, 77% of the LSPAF group received larger device (27, 30, or 33 mm)implants versus only 46% in the non-LSPAF group (p = 0.003). While both groups had similar rates of moderate (3 to 5 mm)leaks at implant (2% vs. 0%; p = 0.14), 27% of the LSPAF vs. 4% of the non-LSPAF group had moderate leaks (p = 0.04)on 6-week follow-up TEE. Conclusions: Patients with LSPAF have significantly larger LAA sizes, require larger devices, and have more residual leak on follow-up TEE. LSPAF may represent a higher risk group that warrants more stringent long-term follow-up.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1018-1026
Number of pages9
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume12
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 10 2019

Fingerprint

Atrial Appendage
Atrial Fibrillation
Transesophageal Echocardiography
Equipment and Supplies
Atrial Remodeling

Keywords

  • left atrial appendage occlusion
  • long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation
  • peridevice leak
  • Watchman device

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Watchman Occlusion in Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation : Larger Left Atrial Appendages With Greater Residual Leak. / Glassy, Matthew S.; Wung, William; Westcott, Sarah; Smith, Thomas W R; Fan, Dali; Rogers, Jason H; Singh, Gagan.

In: JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, Vol. 12, No. 11, 10.06.2019, p. 1018-1026.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b0651648fca94493afc075e310c82f1f,
title = "Watchman Occlusion in Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Larger Left Atrial Appendages With Greater Residual Leak",
abstract = "Objectives: This study sought to compare patients with and without long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF)undergoing Watchman left atrial appendage (LAA)occlusion. Background: An increased burden of atrial fibrillation is associated with progressive left atrial remodeling and enlargement. Methods: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)measures of LAA ostial diameter and depth, device compression, and residual leak were evaluated in 101 consecutive Watchman cases. The patients were categorized into LSPAF (n = 48)or non-LSPAF (n = 53)groups and compared. Results: The average LAA ostial diameter for LSPAF versus non-LSPAF by TEE omniplane at 0° was 21.1 ± 4.1 mm versus 18.2 ± 3.6 mm (p = 0.0002); at 45° was 18.7 ± 3.4 mm versus 16.3 ± 3.1 mm (p = 0.0004); at 90° was 19.6 ± 3.8 mm versus 16.2 ± 3.4 mm (p = 0.00001); and at 135° was 21.0 ± 4.1 mm versus 18.0 ± 4.1 mm (p = 0.0005). The average LAA depth for LSPAF versus non-LSPAF by TEE at 0° was 28.1 ± 6.4 mm versus 25.2 ± 4.9 mm (p = 0.02); at 45° was 27.9 ± 5.8 mm versus 25.1 ± 4.3 mm (p = 0.007); at 90° was 27.2 ± 5.2 mm versus 22.8 ± 3.7 mm (p = 0.0001); and at 135° was 25.6 ± 5.4 mm versus 21.5 ± 3.8 mm (p = 0.0001). In successfully treated patients, 77{\%} of the LSPAF group received larger device (27, 30, or 33 mm)implants versus only 46{\%} in the non-LSPAF group (p = 0.003). While both groups had similar rates of moderate (3 to 5 mm)leaks at implant (2{\%} vs. 0{\%}; p = 0.14), 27{\%} of the LSPAF vs. 4{\%} of the non-LSPAF group had moderate leaks (p = 0.04)on 6-week follow-up TEE. Conclusions: Patients with LSPAF have significantly larger LAA sizes, require larger devices, and have more residual leak on follow-up TEE. LSPAF may represent a higher risk group that warrants more stringent long-term follow-up.",
keywords = "left atrial appendage occlusion, long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, peridevice leak, Watchman device",
author = "Glassy, {Matthew S.} and William Wung and Sarah Westcott and Smith, {Thomas W R} and Dali Fan and Rogers, {Jason H} and Gagan Singh",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcin.2019.04.007",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "1018--1026",
journal = "JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions",
issn = "1936-8798",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Watchman Occlusion in Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

T2 - Larger Left Atrial Appendages With Greater Residual Leak

AU - Glassy, Matthew S.

AU - Wung, William

AU - Westcott, Sarah

AU - Smith, Thomas W R

AU - Fan, Dali

AU - Rogers, Jason H

AU - Singh, Gagan

PY - 2019/6/10

Y1 - 2019/6/10

N2 - Objectives: This study sought to compare patients with and without long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF)undergoing Watchman left atrial appendage (LAA)occlusion. Background: An increased burden of atrial fibrillation is associated with progressive left atrial remodeling and enlargement. Methods: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)measures of LAA ostial diameter and depth, device compression, and residual leak were evaluated in 101 consecutive Watchman cases. The patients were categorized into LSPAF (n = 48)or non-LSPAF (n = 53)groups and compared. Results: The average LAA ostial diameter for LSPAF versus non-LSPAF by TEE omniplane at 0° was 21.1 ± 4.1 mm versus 18.2 ± 3.6 mm (p = 0.0002); at 45° was 18.7 ± 3.4 mm versus 16.3 ± 3.1 mm (p = 0.0004); at 90° was 19.6 ± 3.8 mm versus 16.2 ± 3.4 mm (p = 0.00001); and at 135° was 21.0 ± 4.1 mm versus 18.0 ± 4.1 mm (p = 0.0005). The average LAA depth for LSPAF versus non-LSPAF by TEE at 0° was 28.1 ± 6.4 mm versus 25.2 ± 4.9 mm (p = 0.02); at 45° was 27.9 ± 5.8 mm versus 25.1 ± 4.3 mm (p = 0.007); at 90° was 27.2 ± 5.2 mm versus 22.8 ± 3.7 mm (p = 0.0001); and at 135° was 25.6 ± 5.4 mm versus 21.5 ± 3.8 mm (p = 0.0001). In successfully treated patients, 77% of the LSPAF group received larger device (27, 30, or 33 mm)implants versus only 46% in the non-LSPAF group (p = 0.003). While both groups had similar rates of moderate (3 to 5 mm)leaks at implant (2% vs. 0%; p = 0.14), 27% of the LSPAF vs. 4% of the non-LSPAF group had moderate leaks (p = 0.04)on 6-week follow-up TEE. Conclusions: Patients with LSPAF have significantly larger LAA sizes, require larger devices, and have more residual leak on follow-up TEE. LSPAF may represent a higher risk group that warrants more stringent long-term follow-up.

AB - Objectives: This study sought to compare patients with and without long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF)undergoing Watchman left atrial appendage (LAA)occlusion. Background: An increased burden of atrial fibrillation is associated with progressive left atrial remodeling and enlargement. Methods: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)measures of LAA ostial diameter and depth, device compression, and residual leak were evaluated in 101 consecutive Watchman cases. The patients were categorized into LSPAF (n = 48)or non-LSPAF (n = 53)groups and compared. Results: The average LAA ostial diameter for LSPAF versus non-LSPAF by TEE omniplane at 0° was 21.1 ± 4.1 mm versus 18.2 ± 3.6 mm (p = 0.0002); at 45° was 18.7 ± 3.4 mm versus 16.3 ± 3.1 mm (p = 0.0004); at 90° was 19.6 ± 3.8 mm versus 16.2 ± 3.4 mm (p = 0.00001); and at 135° was 21.0 ± 4.1 mm versus 18.0 ± 4.1 mm (p = 0.0005). The average LAA depth for LSPAF versus non-LSPAF by TEE at 0° was 28.1 ± 6.4 mm versus 25.2 ± 4.9 mm (p = 0.02); at 45° was 27.9 ± 5.8 mm versus 25.1 ± 4.3 mm (p = 0.007); at 90° was 27.2 ± 5.2 mm versus 22.8 ± 3.7 mm (p = 0.0001); and at 135° was 25.6 ± 5.4 mm versus 21.5 ± 3.8 mm (p = 0.0001). In successfully treated patients, 77% of the LSPAF group received larger device (27, 30, or 33 mm)implants versus only 46% in the non-LSPAF group (p = 0.003). While both groups had similar rates of moderate (3 to 5 mm)leaks at implant (2% vs. 0%; p = 0.14), 27% of the LSPAF vs. 4% of the non-LSPAF group had moderate leaks (p = 0.04)on 6-week follow-up TEE. Conclusions: Patients with LSPAF have significantly larger LAA sizes, require larger devices, and have more residual leak on follow-up TEE. LSPAF may represent a higher risk group that warrants more stringent long-term follow-up.

KW - left atrial appendage occlusion

KW - long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation

KW - peridevice leak

KW - Watchman device

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066034326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85066034326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.04.007

DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.04.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 31171276

AN - SCOPUS:85066034326

VL - 12

SP - 1018

EP - 1026

JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

SN - 1936-8798

IS - 11

ER -