Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Overview of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Devices

  • Interventional Cardiology (S Rao, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) places patients at increased risk of thromboembolic events that can be devastating. The left atrial appendage (LAA) has been identified as the source of thrombus formation in nonvalvular AF. Traditionally, systemic anticoagulation has been used to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism. However, anticoagulation is not well tolerated in all patients and is underutilized. As a potential alternative to anticoagulation, novel therapies have been developed to remove the LAA. Three main techniques are being utilized to accomplish LAA exclusion: percutaneous intracardiac, percutaneous epicardial, and surgical approaches. Emerging evidence suggests that LAA exclusion may be an effective means of reducing the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular AF.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Colilla S, Crow A, Petkun W, et al. Estimates of current and future incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation in the U.S. adult population. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112:1142–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991;22:983–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Flint AC, Banki NM, Ren X, et al. Detection of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation by 30-day event monitoring in cryptogenic ischemic stroke: the Stroke and Monitoring for PAF in Real Time (SMART) Registry. Stroke. 2012;43:2788–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Blackshear JL, Odell JA. Appendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillation. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61:755–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:857–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gage BF, Waterman AD, Shannon W, et al. Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation. JAMA. 2001;285:2864–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, et al. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010;137:263–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bungard TJ, Ghali WA, Teo KK, et al. Why do patients with atrial fibrillation not receive warfarin? Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:41–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, RE-LY Steering Committee and Investigators, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1139–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, ROCKET AF Investigators, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:883–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, ARISTOTLE Committees and Investigators, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:981–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chatterjee S, Sardar P, Giri JS, et al. Treatment discontinuations with new oral agents for long-term anticoagulation: insights from a meta-analysis of 18 randomized trials including 101,801 patients. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89:896–907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Turi ZG, PROTECT AF Investigators, et al. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomized non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2009;374:534–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reddy VY, Holmes D, Doshi SK, et al. 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. Circulation. 2011;123:417–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reddy VY, Doshi SK, Sievert H, PROTECT AF Investigators, et al. 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. Circulation. 2013;127:720–9. The 2.3 year results of the PROTECT AF trial comparing Watchman device therapy to long-term warfarin demonstrates the continued non-inferiority of Watchman to warfarin, and strongly implicates the left atrial appendage as the source of thromboembolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Reddy VY, Sievert H, Halperin J, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation. JAMA. 2014;312:1988–98. The 4 year PROTECT AF data now demonstrate superiority of the Watchman device compared to warfarin for the primary efficacy events, and non-inferiority for safety events.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Holmes DR Jr. Watchman II: PROTECT-AF/PREVAIL Meta-analysis and implications. Presented at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT), September 15, 2014; Washington, DC.

  18. Holmes Jr DR, Kar S, Price MJ, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of the Watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1–12. The PREVAIL trial comparing Watchman device therapy to long-term warfarin confirms the safety of the Watchman device while including patients at higher risk of adverse events and newer operators. Noninferiority of Watchman therapy compared to warfarin was demonstrated for late ischemic events but not for combined early and late ischemic events although the number of events were similar and low in both arms.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Reddy, VY. Watchman I: first report of the 5-year PROTECT-AF and extended PREVAIL results. Presented at TCT, September 15, 2014; Washington, DC.

  20. FDA executive summary: Boston Scientific WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure therapy. October 8, 2014. www.fda.gov.

  21. Reddy VY, Möbius-Winkler S, Miller MA, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device in patients with a contraindication for oral anticoagulation: the ASAP study (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2551–6. Nonrandomized study with Watchman device in patients with contraindications to warfarin demonstrated that the Watchman device can be implanted safely without a warfarin transition. Stroke rates were less than expected compared to historical data.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Park JW, Bethencourt A, Sievert H, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with Amplatzer cardiac plug in atrial fibrillation: initial European experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;77:700–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lam YY, Yip GW, Yu CM, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with Amplatzer cardiac plug for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: initial Asia-Pacific experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79:794–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Urena M, Rodés-Cabau J, Freixa X, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with the Amplatzer cardiac plug device in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and contraindications to anticoagulation therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:96–102. Single arm trial demonstrating the low rates of safety events and strokes of the Amplatzer cardiac plug device in patients with contraindications to warfarin.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wiebe J, Bertog S, Franke J, et al. Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with the Amplatzer cardiac plug in patients with atrial fibrillation and contraindications to anticoagulation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83:796–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Plicht B, Konorza TF, Kahlert P, et al. Risk factors for thrombus formation on the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug after left atrial appendage occlusion. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:606–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lam SC, Bertog S, Gafoor S, et al. Left atrial appendage closure using the Amulet device: an initial experience with the second generation Amplatzer cardiac plug. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014.

  28. Freixa X, Abualsaud A, Chan J, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion: initial experience with the Amplatzer™ Amulet™. Int J Cardiol. 2014;174:492–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Reddy, V. Clinical experience with the Coherex WaveCrest™ Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion System. Presented at TCT September 16, 2014; Washington, DC.

  30. Bartus K, Han FT, Bednarek J, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation using the LARIAT device in patients with atrial fibrillation: initial clinical experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:108–18. Observational study demonstrating the acute success and safety of ligating the LAA using the LARIAT device.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Price MJ, Gibson DN, Yakubov SJ, et al. Early safety and efficacy of percutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation: Results from the U.S. transcatheter LAA ligation consortium. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:565–72. Multicenter study using the LARIAT device demonstrated high acute closure, limited by procedural bleeding complications. This represents the early experience at multiple U.S. sites.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pillai AM, Kanmanthareddy A, Earnest M, et al. Initial experience with post Lariat left atrial appendage leak closure with Amplatzer septal occluder device and repeat Lariat application. Heart Rhythm 2014.

  33. Mosley 2nd WJ, Smith MR, Price MJ. Percutaneous management of late leak after lariat transcatheter ligation of the left atrial appendage in patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk for stroke. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83:664–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lee RJ, Rasekh A, Bartus K, et al. Atrial fibrillation patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation therapy treated with LAA ligation: initial long-term clinical outcomes. Presented at Heart Rhythm Society May 9, 2014; San Francisco, CA.

  35. Gage BF, Yan Y, Milligan PE, et al. Clinical classification schemes for predicting hemorrhage: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation (NRAF). Am Heart J. 2006;151:713–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Healey JS, Crystal E, Lamy A, et al. Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study (LAAOS): results of a randomized controlled pilot study of left atrial appendage occlusion during coronary bypass surgery in patients at risk for stroke. Am Heart J. 2005;150:288–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Katz ES, Tsiamtsiouris T, Applebaum RM, et al. Surgical left atrial appendage ligation is frequently incomplete: a transesophageal echocardiographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:468–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kanderian AS, Gillinov AM, Pettersson GB, et al. Success of surgical left atrial appendage closure: assessment by transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:924–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ailawadi G, Gerdisch MW, Harvey RL, et al. Exclusion of the left atrial appendage with a novel device: early results of a multicenter trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:1002–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Slater AD, Tatooles AJ, Coffey A, et al. Prospective clinical study of a novel left atrial appendage occlusion device. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:2035–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tsai YC, Phan K, Munkholm-Larsen S, et al. Surgical left atrial appendage occlusion during cardiac surgery for patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014.

  42. Ohtsuka T, Ninomiya M, Nonaka T, et al. Thoracoscopic stand-alone left atrial appendectomy for thromboembolism prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:103–7. Observational study demonstrating safety and low stroke rate in patients treated with stand-alone minimally invasive surgical left atrial appendectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Whitlock R, Healey J, Vincent J, et al. Rationale and design of the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study (LAAOS) III. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;3:45–54.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Alli O, Doshi S, Kar S, et al. Quality of life assessment in the randomized PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial of patients at risk for stroke with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1790–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Singh SM, Micieli A, Wijeysundera HC. Economic evaluation of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion, dabigatran, and warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2013;127:2414–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gangireddy SR, Halperin JL, Fuster V, Reddy VY. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: an assessment of net clinical benefit. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2700–8. Post hoc analysis of the PROTECT AF study demonstrating that the greatest net clinical benefit of Watchman device versus warfarin is in patients with highest risk of thromboembolic events and in those at highest risk of bleeding.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sandhu RK, Bakal JA, Ezekowitz JA, McAlister FA. Risk stratification schemes, anticoagulation use and outcomes: the risk-treatment paradox in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Heart. 2011;97:2046–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2014;383:955–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Flaker GC, Eikelboom JW, Shestakovska O, et al. Bleeding during treatment with aspirin versus apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation unsuitable for warfarin: the apixaban versus acetylsalicylic acid to prevent stroke in atrial fibrillation patients who have failed or are unsuitable for vitamin K antagonist treatment (AVERROES) trial. Stroke. 2012;43:3291–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Kyle J. Feldmann and Arash Arshi declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Steven J. Yakubov reports grants from SentreHeart and Boston Scientific.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Riverside Methodist Hospital, 3535 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, OH, 43214, USA

    Kyle J. Feldmann, Arash Arshi & Steven J. Yakubov

Authors
  1. Kyle J. Feldmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arash Arshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven J. Yakubov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven J. Yakubov.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Interventional Cardiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feldmann, K.J., Arshi, A. & Yakubov, S.J. An Overview of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Devices. Curr Cardiol Rep 17, 22 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-015-0573-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-015-0573-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation