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, CHA2DS2‐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.

This article is available in open access under Creative Common Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license, allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially.

Objective: Optimal antithrombotic therapy following left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman occluder (Boston Scientific) remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after LAAC. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective study of patients who underwent successful LAAC with Watchman devices at the REGIOMED Hospitals of Coburg and Lichtenfels (Germany). Those treated from 11/2016 to 05/2018 received DAPT for 3 months (DAPT group); those from 02/2012 to 04/2017 received 45-day anticoagulant+aspirin followed by 4.5-month DAPT (ACT group). The primary efficacy outcome and safety outcome were analyzed. The net clinical benefit and bleeding events 1 year after treatment, and their independent risk factors were also explored. Results: There were 220 and 304 patients in the DAPT and ACT groups. The primary efficacy outcome were 9.5% vs. 6.3% [hazard ratio (HR), 1.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-2.97; P=0.14]; the primary safety outcome were 4.5% vs. 5.9% (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.38-1.69; P=0.57); the net clinical benefit were 13.6% vs. 11.8% (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.75-2.02; P=0.39) over 1 year in DAPT and ACT groups, respectively. Age [?]75 years (HR, 2.08; 95%CI, 1.13-3.84; P=0.02) was identified as an independent predictor for the net clinical benefit. ACT (HR, 1.97; 95%CI, 1.12-3.50; P=0.02) was independently associated with bleeding events after procedure. Conclusions: In patients who underwent LAAC using the Watchman occluder, 3-month DAPT is associated with fewer bleeding events compared with ACT regimen.

Background: Optimal antithrombotic therapy following left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with the Watchman occluder remains uncertain. This study retrospectively compared clinical outcomes of a 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT group) and a protocol of anticoagulation plus aspirin for 45 days followed by DAPT for 6 months (ACT group) after LAAC with the Watchman device. Methods: Of two Watchman registries (Coburg and Lichtenfels hospitals, Germany), 220 and 304 consecutive patients with successful LAAC were included. Patients in Coburg hospital received DAPT while they received ACT in Lichtenfels. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 174 (DAPT) versus 174 (ACT) patients were compared by use of the primary efficacy endpoint of thromboembolic events and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of nonprocedural related major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all above-mentioned hazards.