Not to Rush—Laboratory Parameters and Procedural Complications in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure

Background: As a preventive procedure, minimizing periprocedural risk is crucially important during left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). Methods: We included consecutive patients receiving LAAC at nine centres and assessed the relationship between baseline characteristics and the acute procedural outcome. Major procedural complications were defined as all complications requiring immediate invasive intervention or causing irreversible damage. Logistic regression was performed and included age and left-ventricular function. Furthermore, the association between acute complications and long-term outcomes was evaluated. Results: A total of 405 consecutive patients with a median age of 75 years (37% female) were included. 47% had a history of stroke. Median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 (interquartile range, 3–5) and the median HAS-BLED score was 3 (2–4). Major procedural complications occurred in 7% of cases. Low haemoglobin (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.65–0.99 per g/dL, p = 0.040) and end-stage kidney disease (OR 13.0, CI 2.5–68.5, p = 0.002) remained significant in multivariate analysis. Anaemia (haemoglobin < 12 and < 13 g/dL in female and male patients) increased the risk of complications 2.2-fold. Conclusions: The major complication rate was low in this high-risk patient population undergoing LAAC. End-stage kidney disease and low baseline haemoglobin were independently associated with a higher major complication rate

Indications and Outcome in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure—The Austrian LAAC Registry

Background: Complete real-world data on the indications and outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) outside of clinical trials are rare. In this study, we stratified patients undergoing LAAC by indication groups. Methods: This analysis of the national multicentre Austrian LAAC Registry comprised all patients that underwent LAAC up until 2018 at the currently active centres in Austria. The baseline characteristics, procedural details and outcomes between the following indication groups were compared: bleeding as an indication for LAAC (&ldquo;bleeding&rdquo; group) vs. thromboembolism despite oral anticoagulation (OAC; &ldquo;thromboembolism&rdquo; group) vs. an intolerance to OAC for reasons other than the above (&ldquo;other&rdquo; group). Results: The analysis included 186 patients, with 59.7% in the &ldquo;bleeding&rdquo; group, 8.1% in the &ldquo;thromboembolism&rdquo; group and 32.2% in the &ldquo;other&rdquo; group. The CHADS2 score was the highest in the &ldquo;thromboembolism&rdquo; group and the HAS-BLED score was the highest in the &ldquo;bleeding&rdquo; group. The procedural outcomes were similar between groups (implantation success, 97.3%), with major complications occurring in 7.0% of patients. One-year survival free from stroke, bleeding or LAAC-associated hospitalisation was 83.9%, 90.0% and 81.4% in the &ldquo;bleeding&rdquo;, &ldquo;thromboembolism&rdquo; and &ldquo;other&rdquo; groups, respectively (p = 0.891). Conclusions: In routine clinical practice, LAAC was used in a heterogeneous patient population with atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication, inefficacy or intolerance to OAC. The long-term outcome was favourable in all groups

Impact of On-Site Cardiac Surgery on Clinical Outcomes After Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVES This study sought to investigate the outcome of high-risk and inoperable patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in hospitals with (iOSCS) versus without institutional on-site cardiac surgery (no-iOSCS). BACKGROUND Current guidelines recommend the use of TAVR only in institutions with a department for cardiac surgery on site. METHODS In this analysis of the prospective multicenter Austrian TAVI registry, 1,822 consecutive high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR were evaluated. A total of 290 (15.9%) underwent TAVR at no-iOSCS centers (no-iOSCS group), whereas the remaining 1,532 patients (84.1%) were treated in iOSCS centers (iOSCS group). RESULTS Patients of the no-iOSCS group had a higher perioperative risk defined by the logistic EuroSCORE (20.9% vs. 14.2%; p CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR in hospitals without iOSCS had a significantly higher baseline risk profile. After propensity score matching short-and long-term mortality was similar between centers with and without iOSCS. (c) 2018 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation