Impact of Immunosuppressive Drugs on Patients With Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Daisuke Togashi, Christopher R Ellis, Zachary T Yoneda, Jackon G Gregory, Shunsuke Uetake, Salah H Alahwany, Michael T Baker, Arvindh N Kanagasundram
{"title":"Impact of Immunosuppressive Drugs on Patients With Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.","authors":"Daisuke Togashi, Christopher R Ellis, Zachary T Yoneda, Jackon G Gregory, Shunsuke Uetake, Salah H Alahwany, Michael T Baker, Arvindh N Kanagasundram","doi":"10.1111/jce.70080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) reduces the risk of thromboembolic stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who cannot tolerate long-term oral anticoagulation. However, outcomes after LAAC in patients requiring chronic immunosuppressive therapy (IMS) remain unknown. This study aimed to investigate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of percutaneous LAAC in patients receiving chronic IMS.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Patients who underwent LAAC were retrospectively evaluated according to the presence of long-term IMS therapy. Perioperative complications, clinical outcomes, and device follow-up characteristics were evaluated. From November 2017 to March 2023, a total of 1172 patients who underwent LAAC were included (69.3% male, 74.8 years), of whom 74 were taking IMS. The most common reasons for IMS use were rheumatoid arthritis (50.0%), followed by kidney transplantation (17.6%). There were no significant differences in intraoperative complications between the IMS group and the non-IMS group. (1.4% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.943). During 617 [IQR: 373-1046] days, the incidence of systemic infections was higher in the IMS group (25.0% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in peri-device leak (PDL) or device-related thrombus, but the IMS group had a lower percentage of patients with improvement of PDL during follow-up (8.3% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Successful LAAC in patients on IMS was achieved without increasing perioperative complications. Patients on chronic IMS did have an increased occurrence of systemic infections during long-term follow-up. The presence of IMS use was negatively associated with PDL improvement during follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70080","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) reduces the risk of thromboembolic stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who cannot tolerate long-term oral anticoagulation. However, outcomes after LAAC in patients requiring chronic immunosuppressive therapy (IMS) remain unknown. This study aimed to investigate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of percutaneous LAAC in patients receiving chronic IMS.

Methods and results: Patients who underwent LAAC were retrospectively evaluated according to the presence of long-term IMS therapy. Perioperative complications, clinical outcomes, and device follow-up characteristics were evaluated. From November 2017 to March 2023, a total of 1172 patients who underwent LAAC were included (69.3% male, 74.8 years), of whom 74 were taking IMS. The most common reasons for IMS use were rheumatoid arthritis (50.0%), followed by kidney transplantation (17.6%). There were no significant differences in intraoperative complications between the IMS group and the non-IMS group. (1.4% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.943). During 617 [IQR: 373-1046] days, the incidence of systemic infections was higher in the IMS group (25.0% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in peri-device leak (PDL) or device-related thrombus, but the IMS group had a lower percentage of patients with improvement of PDL during follow-up (8.3% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.003).

Conclusion: Successful LAAC in patients on IMS was achieved without increasing perioperative complications. Patients on chronic IMS did have an increased occurrence of systemic infections during long-term follow-up. The presence of IMS use was negatively associated with PDL improvement during follow-up.

免疫抑制药物对经皮左心耳闭塞患者的影响。
引言:经皮左心房附件关闭术(LAAC)可降低不能耐受长期口服抗凝的非瓣膜性心房颤动患者血栓栓塞性卒中的风险。然而,需要慢性免疫抑制治疗(IMS)的患者LAAC后的结果仍然未知。本研究旨在探讨经皮LAAC治疗慢性IMS患者的围手术期和远期疗效。方法和结果:根据长期IMS治疗的存在对LAAC患者进行回顾性评估。评估围手术期并发症、临床结果和器械随访特征。2017年11月至2023年3月,共纳入1172例LAAC患者(男性69.3%,74.8岁),其中74例患者采用IMS。使用IMS最常见的原因是类风湿关节炎(50.0%),其次是肾移植(17.6%)。IMS组与非IMS组术中并发症无明显差异。(1.4% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.943)。在617 [IQR: 373-1046]天内,IMS组的全身感染发生率更高(25.0% vs. 6.1%), p结论:IMS组患者LAAC成功实现,且未增加围手术期并发症。长期随访期间,慢性IMS患者的全身性感染发生率确实有所增加。IMS的使用与随访期间PDL的改善呈负相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
14.80%
发文量
433
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信