Peridevice Leak After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Clinical Impact

Limited studies reported the rate and clinical impact of peridevice leaks (PDL) after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC).All consecutive patients with a nonvalvular atrial fibrillation admitted for LAAC between November 2011 and October 2016 were prospectively enrolled. The follow-up included clinical, transesophageal echocardiography, and/or cardiac computed tomography angiogram (CCTA). PDL was defined by the presence of contrast within the left atrial appendage on CCTA, and Major Adverse Cardiac Event (MACE) included stroke, device-related thrombosis, and cardiovascular death.Overall, 77 patients (mean CHA2DS2-VASc score = 4.4 ± 1.5 and mean HAS-BLED = 3.4 ± 1.1) were implanted using Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (n = 24), Amulet (n = 37), or Watchman devices (n = 16). Indications were stroke recurrence despite adequate oral anticoagulation (OAC, n = 6) or contraindication to long-term OAC (n = 71). From 3-month to 12-month CCTA follow-up, the PDL rate decreased from 68.5% to 56.7% (P = 0.02), without any difference between the various devices. Patients with PDL were more often in permanent atrial fibrillation, and had a larger landing zone diameter, a lower ratio of device compression, and a more frequent off-axis position of the device. A device compression ratio < 10% was the only parameter associated with PDL occurrence. During follow-up (median 236 days) the MACE rate was 9.1%, with no statistically significant difference between patients with vs without PDL (12% vs 4.3%, P = 0.3).The PDL rate detected by CCTA after LAAC was high, especially in cases with a low device compression ratio (< 10%), but decreased over time. The incidence of MACE was quantitatively greater with PDL, but the difference was not statistically significant. Larger studies are needed to determine the clinical importance of PDL.