Atrial fibrillation (AF) is nowadays the most common human arrhythmia and it is considered a marker of an increased risk of embolic stroke. It is known that 99% of AF-related thrombi are generated in the left atrial appendage (LAA), an anatomical structure located within the left atrium (LA). Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has become a good alternative for nonvalvular AF patients with contraindications to anticoagulants. However, there is a non-negligible number of device-related thrombus (DRT) events, created next to the device surface. In silico fluid simulations can be a powerful tool to better understand the relation between LA anatomy, haemodynamics, and the process of thrombus formation. Despite the increasing literature in LA fluid modelling, a consensus has not been reached yet in the community on the optimal modelling choices and boundary conditions for generating realistic simulations. In this line, we have performed a sensitivity analysis of several boundary conditions scenarios, varying inlet/outlet and LA wall movement configurations, using patient-specific imaging data of six LAAO patients (three of them with DRT at follow-up). Mesh and cardiac cycle convergence were also analysed. The boundary conditions scenario that better predicted DRT cases had echocardiography-based velocities at the mitral valve outlet, a generic pressure wave from an AF patient at the pulmonary vein inlets, and a dynamic mesh approach for LA wall deformation, emphasizing the need for patient-specific data for realistic simulations. The obtained promising results need to be further validated with larger cohorts, ideally with ground truth data, but they already offer unique insights on thrombogenic risk in the left atria.

Background: Left atrial appendage closure is an established therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation. Although device-related thrombosis (DRT) is relatively rare, it is potentially linked to adverse events. As data on DRT characteristics, outcome, and treatment regimen are scarce, we aimed to assess these questions in a multicenter approach. Methods: One hundred fifty-six patients with the diagnosis of DRT after left atrial appendage closure were included in the multinational EUROC-DRT registry. Baseline characteristics included clinical and echocardiographic data. After inclusion, all patients underwent further clinical and echocardiographic follow-up to assess DRT dynamics, treatment success, and outcome. Results: DRT was detected after a median of 93 days (interquartile range, 54–161 days) with 17.9% being detected >6 months after left atrial appendage closure. Patients with DRT were at high ischemic and bleeding risk (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc 4.5±1.7, HAS-BLED 3.3±1.2) and had nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (67.3%), previous stroke (53.8%), and spontaneous echo contrast (50.6%). The initial treatment regimens showed comparable resolution rates (antiplatelet monotherapy: 57.1%, dual antiplatelet therapy: 85.7%, vitamin K antagonists: 80.0%, novel oral anticoagulants: 75.0%, and heparin: 68.6%). After intensification or switch of treatment, complete DRT resolution was achieved in 79.5% of patients. Two-year follow-up revealed a high risk of mortality (20.0%) and ischemic stroke (13.8%) in patients with DRT. Patients with incomplete DRT resolution showed numerically higher stroke rates and increased mortality rates (stroke: 17.6% versus 12.3%, P =0.29; mortality: 31.3% versus 13.1%, P =0.05). Conclusions: A substantial proportion of DRT is detected >6 months after left atrial appendage closure, highlighting the need for imaging follow-up. Patients with DRT appear to be at a high risk for stroke and mortality. While DRT resolution was achieved in most patients, incomplete DRT resolution appeared to identify patients at even higher risk. Optimal DRT diagnostic criteria and treatment regimens are warranted.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract