Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC)


Kleinecke, Caroline; Yu, Jiangtao; Neef, Philip; Buffle, Eric; de Marchi, Stefano; Fuerholz, Monika; Nietlispach, Fabian; Valgimigli, Marco; Streit, Samuel R; Fankhauser, Mate; Duenninger, Erich; Windecker, Stephan; Meier, Bernhard; Gloekler, Steffen (2020). Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC). Europace, 22(6):916-923.

Abstract

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.

Abstract

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.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
2 citations in Web of Science®
2 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Cardiocentro Ticino
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Health Sciences > Physiology (medical)
Language:English
Date:1 June 2020
Deposited On:13 Nov 2020 11:28
Last Modified:14 Nov 2020 21:00
Publisher:Oxford University Press
ISSN:1099-5129
OA Status:Closed
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaa001
PubMed ID:32003774

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Get full-text in a library