Procedural and long-term thromboembolic outcomes after left atrial appendage closure: comparison of patients with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.
Nicolas Majunke, Hamza El Hadi, Steffen Desch, Tobias Kister, Maria Buske, Natalie Fischer, Katharina Kirsch, Janine Pöss, Holger Thiele, Marcus Sandri
{"title":"Procedural and long-term thromboembolic outcomes after left atrial appendage closure: comparison of patients with reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.","authors":"Nicolas Majunke, Hamza El Hadi, Steffen Desch, Tobias Kister, Maria Buske, Natalie Fischer, Katharina Kirsch, Janine Pöss, Holger Thiele, Marcus Sandri","doi":"10.25270/jic/24.00347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on periprocedural complications and long-term thromboembolic events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with interventional left atrial appendage closure (LAAC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a retrospective single-center study, a total of 612 patients who underwent successful interventional LAAC were divided into 2 groups: 139 patients with reduced LVEF (less than 50%) and 473 patients with preserved LVEF (≥ 50%). Baseline characteristics, in-hospital procedural complications, and long-term thromboembolic events were compared between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients with reduced LVEF were more likely to be female with a higher CHA2DS2-VA-Score (median 5 vs 4; P less than .0001) and had higher rates of diabetes mellitus (54% vs. 40%; P = .003) and coronary/peripheral artery disease (68% vs 41%; P less than .0001). There was no significant difference in procedure-related complications (major or minor bleeding [2.1% vs 4.2%; P = .44], access site complications [0% vs 4.2%; P = .08], cardiac tamponade [0.7% vs. 0.6%; P = .91], transient ischemic attack (TIA) [1.4% vs. 0.4%; P = .19], stroke [0% vs 0%], and in-hospital death [0% vs 0%]) between the 2 groups. Both groups had a similar median duration of long-term follow-up (20 vs 19 months, respectively; P = .15). During follow-up, there was no significant difference in the rates of TIA (2.2% vs 1.1%; P = .32), stroke (0.7% vs 1.9%; P = .33), or systemic thromboembolic events (0.7% vs 0.4%; P = .66) between the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with reduced LVEF, the procedural safety of LAAC and the long-term rate of thromboembolic events were consistently low and comparable to patients with preserved LVEF.</p>","PeriodicalId":49261,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Invasive Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Invasive Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25270/jic/24.00347","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on periprocedural complications and long-term thromboembolic events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with interventional left atrial appendage closure (LAAC).
Methods: In a retrospective single-center study, a total of 612 patients who underwent successful interventional LAAC were divided into 2 groups: 139 patients with reduced LVEF (less than 50%) and 473 patients with preserved LVEF (≥ 50%). Baseline characteristics, in-hospital procedural complications, and long-term thromboembolic events were compared between the 2 groups.
Results: Patients with reduced LVEF were more likely to be female with a higher CHA2DS2-VA-Score (median 5 vs 4; P less than .0001) and had higher rates of diabetes mellitus (54% vs. 40%; P = .003) and coronary/peripheral artery disease (68% vs 41%; P less than .0001). There was no significant difference in procedure-related complications (major or minor bleeding [2.1% vs 4.2%; P = .44], access site complications [0% vs 4.2%; P = .08], cardiac tamponade [0.7% vs. 0.6%; P = .91], transient ischemic attack (TIA) [1.4% vs. 0.4%; P = .19], stroke [0% vs 0%], and in-hospital death [0% vs 0%]) between the 2 groups. Both groups had a similar median duration of long-term follow-up (20 vs 19 months, respectively; P = .15). During follow-up, there was no significant difference in the rates of TIA (2.2% vs 1.1%; P = .32), stroke (0.7% vs 1.9%; P = .33), or systemic thromboembolic events (0.7% vs 0.4%; P = .66) between the 2 groups.
Conclusions: In patients with reduced LVEF, the procedural safety of LAAC and the long-term rate of thromboembolic events were consistently low and comparable to patients with preserved LVEF.
目的:评价左心室射血分数(LVEF)对介入性左心耳关闭(LAAC)治疗非瓣膜性心房颤动(NVAF)患者围手术期并发症和长期血栓栓塞事件的影响。方法:采用回顾性单中心研究,将612例成功行介入性LAAC的患者分为2组:LVEF减少(小于50%)患者139例,LVEF保留(≥50%)患者473例。比较两组患者的基线特征、院内手术并发症和长期血栓栓塞事件。结果:LVEF降低的患者更有可能是CHA2DS2-VA-Score较高的女性(中位数5 vs 4;P < 0.0001),且糖尿病发生率较高(54%对40%;P = 0.003)和冠状动脉/外周动脉疾病(68% vs 41%;P < 0.0001)。手术相关并发症(大出血或小出血[2.1% vs 4.2%;P = 0.44],通路并发症[0% vs 4.2%;P = .08],心包填塞[0.7% vs. 0.6%;P = 0.91],短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA) [1.4% vs. 0.4%;P = 0.19],卒中[0% vs 0%],院内死亡[0% vs 0%])。两组的中位长期随访时间相似(分别为20个月和19个月;P = .15)。随访期间,两组TIA发生率无显著差异(2.2% vs 1.1%;P = 0.32),卒中(0.7% vs 1.9%;P = 0.33)或全身性血栓栓塞事件(0.7% vs 0.4%;P = .66)。结论:在LVEF减少的患者中,LAAC的手术安全性和血栓栓塞事件的长期发生率始终较低,与保留LVEF的患者相当。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Invasive Cardiology will consider for publication suitable articles on topics pertaining to the invasive treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease.