We have located links that may give you full text access.
Delayed Pericardial Effusion Following Left Atrial Appendage Closure: A 5-Year Single-Center Experience.
Journal of Invasive Cardiology 2023 January
BACKGROUND: Though uncommon, pericardial effusion and cardiac tamponade are serious complications of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). There are few data related to delayed pericardial effusions from this procedure.
METHODS: This is a single-center prospective analysis of 369 patients who underwent LAAC from December 2016 to March 2022 at a large teaching hospital. We compared patients who developed effusion (n = 5) to patients who did not (n = 364) to determine if there were any factors that predispose patients to developing acute (AEs) or delayed pericardial effusions (DEs). We compared patient characteristics, procedural data, and complications. Unadjusted, stepwise multivariate logistic regression was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 369 patients underwent LAAC. Of these, 5 patients (1.4%) developed pericardial effusion. Patients in both groups (pericardial effusion vs non-effusion) had similar patient and procedural characteristics. Patients in both groups were older (mean age, 78.4 ± 7.8 years in the effusion group vs 76.3 ± 8.5 years in the non-effusion group; P=.50) and white (60% in the effusion group vs 90.1% in the non-effusion group). CHA2DS2-VASc (4.2 ± 1.1 vs 4.5 ± 1.4; P=.67) and HAS-BLED (3.4 ± 0.5 vs 3.7 ± 0.9; P=.53) scores were similar in the effusion group vs the non-effusion group, respectively. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common procedural indication in both groups (80% in the effusion group vs 53.6% in the non-effusion group; P=.23). The majority of the patients in both groups had successful implantation in the first attempt, with the 27-mm device the most commonly used size. There was no significant difference in procedural duration (67 minutes in the effusion group vs 75 minutes in the non-effusion group; P=.16). Among patients who received the Watchman Legacy device, 2 patients developed AEs and no patients had DEs. Of those receiving the Watchman FLX device, 1 patient developed AE and 2 patients developed DEs. All of the patients with effusions had successful recovery.
CONCLUSION: In this 5-year, single-center experience, DEs were uncommon and potentially related to LAA device anchor microperforation. No statistically significant risk factors predisposing patients to pericardial effusions were identified in our analysis.
METHODS: This is a single-center prospective analysis of 369 patients who underwent LAAC from December 2016 to March 2022 at a large teaching hospital. We compared patients who developed effusion (n = 5) to patients who did not (n = 364) to determine if there were any factors that predispose patients to developing acute (AEs) or delayed pericardial effusions (DEs). We compared patient characteristics, procedural data, and complications. Unadjusted, stepwise multivariate logistic regression was performed.
RESULTS: A total of 369 patients underwent LAAC. Of these, 5 patients (1.4%) developed pericardial effusion. Patients in both groups (pericardial effusion vs non-effusion) had similar patient and procedural characteristics. Patients in both groups were older (mean age, 78.4 ± 7.8 years in the effusion group vs 76.3 ± 8.5 years in the non-effusion group; P=.50) and white (60% in the effusion group vs 90.1% in the non-effusion group). CHA2DS2-VASc (4.2 ± 1.1 vs 4.5 ± 1.4; P=.67) and HAS-BLED (3.4 ± 0.5 vs 3.7 ± 0.9; P=.53) scores were similar in the effusion group vs the non-effusion group, respectively. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common procedural indication in both groups (80% in the effusion group vs 53.6% in the non-effusion group; P=.23). The majority of the patients in both groups had successful implantation in the first attempt, with the 27-mm device the most commonly used size. There was no significant difference in procedural duration (67 minutes in the effusion group vs 75 minutes in the non-effusion group; P=.16). Among patients who received the Watchman Legacy device, 2 patients developed AEs and no patients had DEs. Of those receiving the Watchman FLX device, 1 patient developed AE and 2 patients developed DEs. All of the patients with effusions had successful recovery.
CONCLUSION: In this 5-year, single-center experience, DEs were uncommon and potentially related to LAA device anchor microperforation. No statistically significant risk factors predisposing patients to pericardial effusions were identified in our analysis.
Full text links
Trending Papers
Monitoring Macro- and Microcirculation in the Critically Ill: A Narrative Review.Avicenna Journal of Medicine 2023 July
Euglycemic Ketoacidosis in Two Patients Without Diabetes After Introduction of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.Diabetes Care 2023 November 22
ASA Consensus-based Guidance on Preoperative Management of Patients on Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists.Anesthesiology 2023 November 21
Tranexamic Acid for Traumatic Injury in the Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Bias-Adjusted Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Annals of Emergency Medicine 2023 November 22
Association between postinduction hypotension and postoperative mortality: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2023 November 22
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app