<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Kleinecke C</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Yu J</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Neef P</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Buffle E</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>de Marchi S</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Fuerholz M</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Nietlispach F</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Valgimigli M</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Streit SR</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Fankhauser M</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Duenninger E</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Windecker S</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Meier B</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Gloekler S</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2020</dc:date>
  <dc:description xmlns:ns0="xml" ns0:lang="en">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.</dc:description>
  <dc:identifier>https://sonar.ch/global/documents/132391</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1093/europace/euaa001</dc:relation>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/32003774</dc:relation>
  <dc:source>Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology. - 2020</dc:source>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns1="xml" ns1:lang="en"> Anticoagulation</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns2="xml" ns2:lang="en">Amplatzer</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns3="xml" ns3:lang="en">Atrial fibrillation</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns4="xml" ns4:lang="en">Left atrial appendage closure</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns5="xml" ns5:lang="en">Stroke prevention</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject xmlns:ns6="xml" ns6:lang="en">Watchman</dc:subject>
  <dc:title xmlns:ns7="xml" ns7:lang="en">Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC).</dc:title>
  <dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>
