Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC)
| Autor: | Eric Buffle, Jiangtao Yu, Marco Valgimigli, Bernhard Meier, Fabian Nietlispach, Caroline Kleinecke, Stephan Windecker, Mate Fankhauser, Steffen Gloekler, Stefano F de Marchi, Samuel R Streit, Philip Neef, Monika Fuerholz, Erich Duenninger |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | University of Zurich, Gloekler, Steffen |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Cardiac Catheterization Septal Occluder Device 610 Medicine & health 11171 Cardiocentro Ticino 2705 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine 2737 Physiology (medical) Left atrial Physiology (medical) Internal medicine Germany Atrial Fibrillation Medicine Humans Atrial Appendage Stroke Aged Aged 80 and over business.industry Surrogate endpoint Hazard ratio Atrial fibrillation medicine.disease Confidence interval Treatment Outcome Embolism Propensity score matching Cardiology Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine business Switzerland |
| Zdroj: | Kleinecke, Caroline; Yu, Jiangtao; Neef, Philip; Buffle, Eric; de Marchi, Stefano; Fuerholz, Monika; Nietlispach, Fabian; Valgimigli, Marco; Streit, Samuel R; Fankhauser, Mate; Duenninger, Erich; Windecker, Stephan; Meier, Bernhard; Gloekler, Steffen (2020). Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC). Europace, 22(6), pp. 916-923. Oxford University Press 10.1093/europace/euaa001 |
| ISSN: | 1532-2092 |
| DOI: | 10.1093/europace/euaa001 |
| Popis: | Aims This study compares clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer devices for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). Methods and results Of two real-world registries, the Watchman registry Lichtenfels, Germany, and the Amplatzer registry Bern-Zurich, Switzerland, 303 and 333 consecutive patients, respectively, were included. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 266 vs. 266 patients were compared by use of the predefined primary efficacy endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all above-mentioned hazards. Mean age was 75.3 ± 7.8 (Watchman) vs. 75.1 ± 9.9 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.5 ± 1.5, and HAS-BLED score 3.2 ± 1.0 vs. 3.2 ± 1.0. At a mean follow-up of 2.4 ± 1.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 years and 1.322 patient-years, the primary endpoints of efficacy [40/646, 6.2% [Watchman] vs. 43/676, 6.4% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio (HR), 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66–1.58; P = 0.92] and safety (33/646, 5.1% vs. 30/676, 4.4%; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29–1.11; P = 0.10), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (69/646, 10.7% vs. 66/676, 9.8%; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55–1.12; P = 0.26) were similar for both groups. Conclusion This study suggests comparable efficacy and safety of the Watchman and Amplatzer devices. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|