Premium
Late clinical outcomes of lambre versus amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure
Author(s) -
Schnupp Steffen,
Liu XiaoXia,
Buffle Eric,
Gloekler Steffen,
Mohrez Yamen,
CheikhIbrahim Mohammad,
Allakkis Wasim,
Brachmann Johannes,
Park JaiWun,
Kleinecke Caroline
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.193
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1540-8167
pISSN - 1045-3873
DOI - 10.1111/jce.14398
Subject(s) - medicine , hazard ratio , atrial fibrillation , clinical endpoint , cardiology , confidence interval , stroke (engine) , propensity score matching , randomized controlled trial , mechanical engineering , engineering
The LAmbre (LifeTech Scientific, Shenzhen, China) is a novel occluder for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation. This study compares late clinical outcomes of LAmbre and the established Amplatzer devices (Abbott, St Paul, MN). Methods Between 2012 and 2018, 265 consecutive patients underwent LAAC with LAmbre and Amplatzer devices at a single center. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 40 (LAmbre) vs 107 (Amplatzer) patients were compared by the primary efficacy endpoint of all‐cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow‐up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all the above‐mentioned hazards. Results The mean age 75.6 ± 8.9 (LAmbre) vs 75.5 ± 9.0 (Amplatzer) years, CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score 4.8 ± 1.7 vs 4.8 ± 1.7 and HAS‐BLED score 3.1 ± 0.9 vs 3.2 ± 0.8 were similar. After 3.6 ± 1.9 vs 2.5 ± 1.4 years, the clinical efficacy (12/146, 8.2% [LAmbre] vs 28/266, 10.5% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38‐1.40; P = .34) and safety (5/146, 3.4% vs 14/266, 5.3%; HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.14‐1.6; P = .22), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (15/146, 10.3% vs 36/266, 13.6%; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.36‐1.25; P = .21) were comparable. Conclusion In the presented report, in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the LAmbre offered similar long‐term efficacy and safety in comparison to Amplatzer devices.