Shephal K. Doshi

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, embolic stroke is thought to be associated with left atrial appendage (LAA) thrombi. We assessed the efficacy and safety of percutaneous closure of the LAA for prevention of stroke compared with warfarin treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS Adult patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation were eligible for inclusion in this multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial if they had at least one of the following: previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack, congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, or were 75 years or older. 707 eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio by computer-generated randomisation sequence to percutaneous closure of the LAA and subsequent discontinuation of warfarin (intervention; n=463) or to warfarin treatment with a target international normalised ratio between 2.0 and 3.0 (control; n=244). Efficacy was assessed by a primary composite endpoint of stroke, cardiovascular death, and systemic embolism. We selected a one-sided probability criterion of non-inferiority for the intervention of at least 97.5%, by use of a two-fold non-inferiority margin. Serious adverse events that constituted the primary endpoint for safety included major bleeding, pericardial effusion, and device embolisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00129545. FINDINGS At 1065 patient-years of follow-up, the primary efficacy event rate was 3.0 per 100 patient-years (95% credible interval [CrI] 1.9-4.5) in the intervention group and 4.9 per 100 patient-years (2.8-7.1) in the control group (rate ratio [RR] 0.62, 95% CrI 0.35-1.25). The probability of non-inferiority of the intervention was more than 99.9%. Primary safety events were more frequent in the intervention group than in the control group (7.4 per 100 patient-years, 95% CrI 5.5-9.7, vs 4.4 per 100 patient-years, 95% CrI 2.5-6.7; RR 1.69, 1.01-3.19). INTERPRETATION The efficacy of percutaneous closure of the LAA with this device was non-inferior to that of warfarin therapy. Although there was a higher rate of adverse safety events in the intervention group than in the control group, events in the intervention group were mainly a result of periprocedural complications. Closure of the LAA might provide an alternative strategy to chronic warfarin therapy for stroke prophylaxis in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. FUNDING Atritech.

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

Background— 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. Methods and Results— 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). Conclusion— 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.

Safety of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure

Background— 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. Methods and Results— 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). Conclusion— 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.

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

Background— 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. Methods and Results— 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). Conclusions— 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. Clinical Trial Registration:— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00129545.

Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Prophylaxis in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: 2.3 Year Follow-Up of the PROTECT AF Trial

Background— 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. Methods and Results— 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). Conclusions— 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. Clinical Trial Registration:— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00129545.

Esophageal Injury and Temperature Monitoring During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

Background— It is common practice to empirically limit the radiofrequency (RF) power when ablating the posterior left atrium during atrial fibrillation ablation to avoid thermal injury to the esophagus. The objective of this study was to determine whether RF energy delivery limited by luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring is associated with a reduction in esophageal injury compared with a strategy of RF power limitation alone. Methods and Results— Eighty-one consecutive patients who underwent atrial fibrillation ablation followed by esophageal endoscopy were included in this observational study. All patients underwent extraostial electric pulmonary vein isolation by using an electroanatomic mapping system and irrigated RF ablation. All RF applications on the posterior left atrium were limited to 35 W. A commercially available, single-thermocouple esophageal probe was used to monitor LET in a subset of patients (n=67). In these cases, applications were promptly interrupted when LET was ≥38.5°C; further applications were performed at reduced power to obtain a LET <38.5°C. Esophageal endoscopy was performed 1 to 3 days after the procedure. Ablation-related esophageal ulcerations were identified in 9 of 81 (11%) patients. All patients were asymptomatic. Of these 81 patients, LET monitoring during ablation occurred in 67 (83%) of patients. Esophageal injury was observed more frequently (36% versus 6%, P<0.006) in the group without LET monitoring. Conclusions— These data suggest that LET monitoring may be associated with a reduction in esophageal injury compared with power limitation alone.

Esophageal Injury and Temperature Monitoring During Atrial Fibrillation AblationCLINICAL PERSPECTIVE

Background— It is common practice to empirically limit the radiofrequency (RF) power when ablating the posterior left atrium during atrial fibrillation ablation to avoid thermal injury to the esophagus. The objective of this study was to determine whether RF energy delivery limited by luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring is associated with a reduction in esophageal injury compared with a strategy of RF power limitation alone. Methods and Results— Eighty-one consecutive patients who underwent atrial fibrillation ablation followed by esophageal endoscopy were included in this observational study. All patients underwent extraostial electric pulmonary vein isolation by using an electroanatomic mapping system and irrigated RF ablation. All RF applications on the posterior left atrium were limited to 35 W. A commercially available, single-thermocouple esophageal probe was used to monitor LET in a subset of patients (n=67). In these cases, applications were promptly interrupted when LET was ≥38.5°C; further applications were performed at reduced power to obtain a LET <38.5°C. Esophageal endoscopy was performed 1 to 3 days after the procedure. Ablation-related esophageal ulcerations were identified in 9 of 81 (11%) patients. All patients were asymptomatic. Of these 81 patients, LET monitoring during ablation occurred in 67 (83%) of patients. Esophageal injury was observed more frequently (36% versus 6%, P <0.006) in the group without LET monitoring. Conclusions— These data suggest that LET monitoring may be associated with a reduction in esophageal injury compared with power limitation alone. Received March 20, 2008; accepted May 30, 2008.

Visual balloon-guided point-by-point ablation: reliable, reproducible, and persistent pulmonary vein isolation.

Background—While conceptually straightforward, placing point-to-point contiguous radiofrequency lesions to achieve pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is technically challenging in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Furthermore, chronic efficacy is limited by late PV reconnections. A novel compliant balloon ablation catheter able to deliver visually guided short arcs/spots of laser energy was tested in initial preclinical and clinical cases to determine if visual guidance could predict reliable and persistent PVI. Methods and Results—This study consisted of (1) an experimental porcine phase with both acute (n=15 pigs) and 4-week chronic (n=10) data and (2) a single-center clinical feasibility phase (n=27 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation), again with acute and 3-month chronic data. Under endoscopic guidance, point-by-point perivenous ablation was performed in a contiguous and overlapping manner. Each porcine PV was longitudinally sectioned for detailed histological analysis. At 3 months after ablation, patients underwent a prespecified remapping procedure regardless of symptomotology. In the acute and chronic animals, 29 of 30 (97%) PVs were electrically isolated after placing the initial circumferential lesion set. For the 4-week chronic animals, 80% of PVs remained isolated; lesions were histologically circumferential in 120 of 120 (100%) PV sections and transmural in 116 of 120 (96.7%) PV sections (average transmurality=99.0±5.5%). In patients, 100% of the PVs were isolated after 1.3 attempts per PV—84% of them (85 of 101) isolated after the initial visually guided lesion set. At 3 months, 61 of 68 (90%) PVs continued to be electrically isolated. Conclusions—Using a visually guided, compliant balloon ablation catheter with point-by-point ablative capability, PV isolation can be achieved in a reliable, reproducible, and persistent manner.

Pulmonary vein isolation using a visually guided laser balloon catheter: the first 200-patient multicenter clinical experience.

Background— Because of the technical difficulty with achieving pulmonary vein (PV) isolation in the treatment of patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, novel catheter designs to facilitate the procedure are in development. A visually guided laser ablation (VGLA) catheter was designed to allow the operator to directly visualize target tissue for ablation and then deliver laser energy to perform point-to-point circumferential ablation. Single-center studies have demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy. We sought to determine the multicenter feasibility, efficacy, and safety of performing PV isolation using the VGLA catheter. Methods and Results— This study includes the first 200 paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients treated with the VGLA catheter (33 operators, 15 centers). After transseptal puncture, the VGLA catheter was used to perform PV isolation. Electric isolation was assessed using a circular mapping catheter. Using the VGLA catheter, 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 97.8%–99.5%) of targeted PVs were isolated using a mean of 1.07 catheters per patient. Fluoroscopy and procedure times were 31±21 (mean±SD) and 200±54 minutes, respectively, and improved with operator experience. There were no instances of stroke, transient ischemic attack, atrioesophageal fistulas, or significant PV stenosis. There was a 2% incidence of cardiac tamponade and a 2.5% incidence of phrenic nerve palsy. At 12 months, the drug-free rate of freedom from atrial arrhythmias after 1 or 2 procedures was 60.2% (95% confidence interval, 52.7%–67.4%). Conclusions— In this multicenter experience of the first 200 patients treated with the VGLA catheter, PV isolation can be achieved in virtually all patients using a single VGLA catheter with an efficacy similar to radiofrequency ablation.Background—Because of the technical difficulty with achieving pulmonary vein (PV) isolation in the treatment of patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, novel catheter designs to facilitate the procedure are in development. A visually guided laser ablation (VGLA) catheter was designed to allow the operator to directly visualize target tissue for ablation and then deliver laser energy to perform point-to-point circumferential ablation. Single-center studies have demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy. We sought to determine the multicenter feasibility, efficacy, and safety of performing PV isolation using the VGLA catheter. Methods and Results—This study includes the first 200 paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients treated with the VGLA catheter (33 operators, 15 centers). After transseptal puncture, the VGLA catheter was used to perform PV isolation. Electric isolation was assessed using a circular mapping catheter. Using the VGLA catheter, 98.8% (95% confidence interval, 97.8%–99.5%) of targeted PVs were isolated using a mean of 1.07 catheters per patient. Fluoroscopy and procedure times were 31±21 (mean±SD) and 200±54 minutes, respectively, and improved with operator experience. There were no instances of stroke, transient ischemic attack, atrioesophageal fistulas, or significant PV stenosis. There was a 2% incidence of cardiac tamponade and a 2.5% incidence of phrenic nerve palsy. At 12 months, the drug-free rate of freedom from atrial arrhythmias after 1 or 2 procedures was 60.2% (95% confidence interval, 52.7%–67.4%). Conclusions—In this multicenter experience of the first 200 patients treated with the VGLA catheter, PV isolation can be achieved in virtually all patients using a single VGLA catheter with an efficacy similar to radiofrequency ablation.

Integration of 3-Dimensional Cardiac Computed Tomography Images With Real-Time Electroanatomic Mapping to Guide Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation

A 63-year-old woman was referred for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Two weeks before the ablation procedure, contrast-enhanced cardiac imaging was performed with a 16-slice spiral computed tomography (CT) scanner, and the planar CT images were converted to a 3D surface reconstruction of the left atrium (LA), left atrial appendage (LAA), and pulmonary veins (PVs) (Figure 1). During the electrophysiology study, a transseptal puncture was performed to enter the LA to allow mapping of the LA, LAA, and PVs with an electroanatomic mapping system (Biosense-Webster, Inc). A custom, image-guided therapy workstation was developed capable of (1) importing the 3D CT surface reconstruction, as well as electroanatomic mapping information (including real-time …