Late clinical outcomes of lambre versus amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure. (12th March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schnupp, Steffen; Liu, Xiao‐Xia; Buffle, Eric; Gloekler, Steffen; Mohrez, Yamen; Cheikh‐Ibrahim, Mohammad; Allakkis, Wasim; Brachmann, Johannes; Park, Jai‐Wun; Kleinecke, Caroline
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology. Volume 31:Number 4(2020)
• Page Start: 934
• Page End: 942
• Publication Date: 2020-03-12
• Subjects: Amplatzer -- atrial fibrillation -- LAmbre -- left atrial appendage closure -- stroke prevention; Blood vessels -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; 612.1
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.14398
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1045-3873

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: 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, CHA2 DS2 ‐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.