Journal article
Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC).
- Kleinecke C Department of Cardiology, REGIOMED Klinikum Lichtenfels, Lichtenfels, Germany.
- Yu J Department of Cardiology, REGIOMED Klinikum Lichtenfels, Lichtenfels, Germany.
- Neef P Department of Cardiology, Schwarzwald-Baar Klinikum, Klinikstraße 11, 78052 Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.
- Buffle E Cardiology, Cardiovascular Department, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- de Marchi S Cardiology, Cardiovascular Department, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- Fuerholz M Cardiology, Cardiovascular Department, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- Nietlispach F Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Valgimigli M Cardiology, Cardiovascular Department, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- Streit SR Cardiology, Cardiovascular Department, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- Fankhauser M Cardiology, Cardiovascular Department, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- Duenninger E Department of Cardiology, REGIOMED Klinikum Lichtenfels, Lichtenfels, Germany.
- Windecker S Cardiology, Cardiovascular Department, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- Meier B Cardiology, Cardiovascular Department, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- Gloekler S Department of Cardiology, Schwarzwald-Baar Klinikum, Klinikstraße 11, 78052 Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany.
- 2020-02-01
Published in:
- 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
Anticoagulation
Amplatzer
Atrial fibrillation
Left atrial appendage closure
Stroke prevention
Watchman
English
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.
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.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- closed
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1093/europace/euaa001
- PMID 32003774
- Persistent URL
- https://sonar.ch/global/documents/132391
Statistics
Document views: 28
File downloads: