4.6 Article

Left atrial catheter ablation in patients with previously implanted left atrial appendage closure devices

Journal

EUROPACE
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 428-433

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euy237

Keywords

Atrial fibrillation; Catheter ablation; Stroke prevention; Left atrial appendage; Left atrial appendage closure

Funding

  1. ZonMw Topzorg [842001003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is increasingly used as an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Feasibility and safety of left atrial (LA) catheter ablation (CA) in patients with previously implanted LAAC devices have not been well studied. We report on the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of LA CA in the presence of a previously implanted LAAC device. Methods and results In this prospective cohort study consecutive patients that underwent LA CA with a previously implanted Watchman device were included. Periprocedural characteristics and long-term clinical follow-up were evaluated. Twenty-three LA CA procedures were performed in 19/162 AF patients with previously implanted Watchman devices [47% male, age 63.9 +/- 6.2 years, CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc 4.0 (3.0-5.0); HASBLED 3.0 (2.0-4.0); 63% paroxysmal]. Left atrial CA was performed with irrigated radiofrequency (RF; n = 20, 87%) or phased RF (n = 3, 13%) in a mean of 18 months after LAAC implantation (range 4-80 months). Targets of CA consisted of pulmonary vein isolation (n = 19, 83%), superior vena cava isolation (n = 13, 57%), and additional linear lesions (n = 8, 35%). Procedures were carried out under vitamin K antagonist (VKA; n = 6, 26%), non-VKA OAC (NOAC; n = 8, 35%), or single antiplatelet therapy alone (n = 9, 39%). Left atrial CA was successful without any signs of interference from the device. Procedure-related complications were not observed. During a mean follow-up of 28 months, 11 patients (58%) had AF recurrence. Conclusion Left atrial CA after LAAC appears to be feasible, effective, and safe in this single centre cohort. Previously implanted Watchman device should not be a reason to relinquish CA in symptomatic AF patients, even in patients on single antiplatelet therapy alone.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available