Comparison in Short-Term Safety and Efficacy between New-Generation WATCHMAN FLX and Conventional WATCHMAN 2.5 for Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure

7Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using the WATCHMAN system, to prevent thrombosis and minimize anti-coagulant use in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, has recently been introduced. The safety and efficacy of new-generation WATCHMAN FLX, as compared to conventional WATCHMAN 2.5, remain unknown. Methods: Consecutive patients who received percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using the WATCHMAN system in our institute, between June 2020 and December 2021, were retrospectively analyzed. Safety and efficacy during the 45-day observational period were compared between the two devices. Results: A total of 93 patients (73.0 ± 7.3 years old, 63 men) who received WATCHMAN FLX (n = 44) or WATCHMAN 2.5 (n = 49) were included. The device implant success rate was 100% in the FLX device group and 98% in the 2.5 device group. There were no procedure-related complications in the FLX group, and one non-relevant pericardial effusion in the 2.5 device group. During the 45-day observational period, there were no procedure-related adverse events. No patients in the FLX group had a peri-device leak >3 mm, whereas two patients in the 2.5 device group had a peri-device leak >3 mm. Anti-coagulants could be terminated in most of the patients (85% versus 88%; p = 0.68). Conclusions: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using new-generation WATCHMAN FLX seemed to be as safe and effective as conventional WATCHMAN 2.5 during the short-term observational period.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fukuda, N., Imamura, T., Tanaka, S., Kataoka, N., Ushijima, R., Ueno, H., & Kinugawa, K. (2022). Comparison in Short-Term Safety and Efficacy between New-Generation WATCHMAN FLX and Conventional WATCHMAN 2.5 for Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061618

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free