Cargando…

Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative to chronic oral anticoagulation to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The Amulet IDE trial (Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE Trial) was designed to evaluate the safety and e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya, Thaler, David, Ellis, Christopher R., Swarup, Vijendra, Sondergaard, Lars, Carroll, John, Gold, Michael R., Hermiller, James, Diener, Hans-Christoph, Schmidt, Boris, MacDonald, Lee, Mansour, Moussa, Maini, Brijeshwar, O’Brien, Laura, Windecker, Stephan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8570346/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34459659
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057063
_version_ 1784594822252724224
author Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya
Thaler, David
Ellis, Christopher R.
Swarup, Vijendra
Sondergaard, Lars
Carroll, John
Gold, Michael R.
Hermiller, James
Diener, Hans-Christoph
Schmidt, Boris
MacDonald, Lee
Mansour, Moussa
Maini, Brijeshwar
O’Brien, Laura
Windecker, Stephan
author_facet Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya
Thaler, David
Ellis, Christopher R.
Swarup, Vijendra
Sondergaard, Lars
Carroll, John
Gold, Michael R.
Hermiller, James
Diener, Hans-Christoph
Schmidt, Boris
MacDonald, Lee
Mansour, Moussa
Maini, Brijeshwar
O’Brien, Laura
Windecker, Stephan
author_sort Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya
collection PubMed
description Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative to chronic oral anticoagulation to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The Amulet IDE trial (Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE Trial) was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the dual-seal mechanism of the Amulet LAA occluder compared with the Watchman device. METHODS: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo percutaneous implantation of a LAA occluder with the Amulet occluder or Watchman device. The primary end points included safety (composite of procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months), effectiveness (composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months), and the rate of LAA occlusion at 45 days. Prespecified secondary end points included a composite of all stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death at 18 months, major bleeding at 18 months, and superiority test of the 3 primary end points. RESULTS: A total of 1878 patients were enrolled. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary safety end point (14.5% versus 14.7%; difference=–0.14 [95% CI, –3.42 to 3.13]; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding and all-cause death were similar between groups (10.6% versus 10.0% and 3.9% versus 5.1%, respectively). Procedure-related complications were higher for the Amulet occluder (4.5% versus 2.5%), largely related to more frequent pericardial effusion and device embolization. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary effectiveness end point (2.8% versus 2.8%; difference=0.00 [95% CI, –1.55 to 1.55]; P<0.001 for noninferiority), and the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death (5.6% versus 7.7%, difference=–2.12 [95% CI, –4.45 to 0.21]; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of major bleeding was similar between groups (11.6% versus 12.3%; difference=–0.71 [95% CI, –3.72 to 2.31]; P=0.32 for superiority). LAA occlusion was higher for the Amulet occluder than for the Watchman device (98.9% versus 96.8%; difference=2.03 [95% CI, 0.41–3.66]; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.003 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: The Amulet occluder was noninferior for safety and effectiveness of stroke prevention for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation compared with the Watchman device and superior for LAA occlusion. Procedure-related complications were higher with the Amulet occluder and decreased with operator experience. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02879448.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8570346
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85703462021-11-12 Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya Thaler, David Ellis, Christopher R. Swarup, Vijendra Sondergaard, Lars Carroll, John Gold, Michael R. Hermiller, James Diener, Hans-Christoph Schmidt, Boris MacDonald, Lee Mansour, Moussa Maini, Brijeshwar O’Brien, Laura Windecker, Stephan Circulation Original Research Articles Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative to chronic oral anticoagulation to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The Amulet IDE trial (Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder IDE Trial) was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the dual-seal mechanism of the Amulet LAA occluder compared with the Watchman device. METHODS: Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at increased risk of stroke were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo percutaneous implantation of a LAA occluder with the Amulet occluder or Watchman device. The primary end points included safety (composite of procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months), effectiveness (composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months), and the rate of LAA occlusion at 45 days. Prespecified secondary end points included a composite of all stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death at 18 months, major bleeding at 18 months, and superiority test of the 3 primary end points. RESULTS: A total of 1878 patients were enrolled. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary safety end point (14.5% versus 14.7%; difference=–0.14 [95% CI, –3.42 to 3.13]; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding and all-cause death were similar between groups (10.6% versus 10.0% and 3.9% versus 5.1%, respectively). Procedure-related complications were higher for the Amulet occluder (4.5% versus 2.5%), largely related to more frequent pericardial effusion and device embolization. The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for the primary effectiveness end point (2.8% versus 2.8%; difference=0.00 [95% CI, –1.55 to 1.55]; P<0.001 for noninferiority), and the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death (5.6% versus 7.7%, difference=–2.12 [95% CI, –4.45 to 0.21]; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of major bleeding was similar between groups (11.6% versus 12.3%; difference=–0.71 [95% CI, –3.72 to 2.31]; P=0.32 for superiority). LAA occlusion was higher for the Amulet occluder than for the Watchman device (98.9% versus 96.8%; difference=2.03 [95% CI, 0.41–3.66]; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.003 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: The Amulet occluder was noninferior for safety and effectiveness of stroke prevention for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation compared with the Watchman device and superior for LAA occlusion. Procedure-related complications were higher with the Amulet occluder and decreased with operator experience. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02879448. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-08-30 2021-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8570346/ /pubmed/34459659 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057063 Text en © 2021 The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Circulation is published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-NoDerivs (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited, the use is noncommercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Lakkireddy, Dhanunjaya
Thaler, David
Ellis, Christopher R.
Swarup, Vijendra
Sondergaard, Lars
Carroll, John
Gold, Michael R.
Hermiller, James
Diener, Hans-Christoph
Schmidt, Boris
MacDonald, Lee
Mansour, Moussa
Maini, Brijeshwar
O’Brien, Laura
Windecker, Stephan
Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial
title Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_full Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_fullStr Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_full_unstemmed Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_short Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial
title_sort amplatzer amulet left atrial appendage occluder versus watchman device for stroke prophylaxis (amulet ide): a randomized, controlled trial
topic Original Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8570346/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34459659
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057063
work_keys_str_mv AT lakkireddydhanunjaya amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT thalerdavid amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ellischristopherr amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT swarupvijendra amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT sondergaardlars amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT carrolljohn amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT goldmichaelr amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hermillerjames amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT dienerhanschristoph amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT schmidtboris amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT macdonaldlee amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mansourmoussa amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mainibrijeshwar amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT obrienlaura amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT windeckerstephan amplatzeramuletleftatrialappendageoccluderversuswatchmandeviceforstrokeprophylaxisamuletidearandomizedcontrolledtrial