Feasibility and safety of a percutaneous and non-fluoroscopic procedure for left atrial appendage closure in patients for whom fluoroscopy presents risk: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) are older adult individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) and many comorbidities, which may elevate the risk for complications associated with contrast agents with the fluoroscopic image-guided procedure. This retrospective cohort study of patients with AF at high risk for use of contrast agents compared the feasibility and safety of LAAC using percutaneous and non-fluoroscopic procedure with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) as the only image guidance relative to those under fluoroscopic image guidance.

METHODS: In this retrospective study, we enrolled 126 patients with AF who underwent LAAC from September 2017 to December 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the imaging guidance modality: a TEE group (n=32) and a fluoroscopic group (n=94). We analyzed the differences in complete closure rates and device- and procedure-related complications between the 2 groups. Continuous variables were assessed using the Student t -test or Mann-Whitney test, while categorical variables were evaluated using Pearson chi-squared test or Fisher exact test. Propensity-score matching was used to adjust for baseline differences.

RESULTS: Propensity-score matching yielded 25 pairs of patients with similarly distributed age (72.9±6.9 vs. 73.1±4.9 years; P=0.925), gender (10:15 vs. 11:14; P>0.99), weight (68.3±11.2 vs. 68.1±12.3 kg; P=0.948), and alanine aminotransferase level (20.0±9.8 vs. 22.5±14.2 U/L; P=0.482). The LAA was successfully occluded in all patients, and the TEE group showed similar results to the fluoroscopic group in terms of success rate (100% vs. 100%; P>0.99) and hospitalization duration [5.0 (IQ1-IQ3: 3.0-7.0) vs. 5.0 (IQ1-IQ3: 3.0-6.0) days; P=0.498]. The groups also demonstrated comparable complication rates, with 1 (4.2%) case of pericardial effusion and 1 (4.2%) case of residual shunt in the TEE group, and 5 (20%) cases of residual shunt, 1 (4.2%) case of pericardial effusion, 1 (4.2%) case of myocardial infarction, and 1 (4.2%) case of access-related complications in the fluoroscopic group. There were no deaths. The overall incidence rate of procedure-related complications (6.2% vs. 18.1%, P=0.153) at mean 22.2±4.5 months follow-up between the 2 groups was similar.

CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF of high risk for use of contrast agents, LAAC under non-fluoroscopic guidance appears feasible and safe with similar outcomes to that under fluoroscopic guidance.