Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
WATCHMAN versus LACbes® device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: a single-center, propensity-matched study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
WATCHMAN versus LACbes® device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: a single-center, propensity-matched study
Do you wish to request the book?
WATCHMAN versus LACbes® device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: a single-center, propensity-matched study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
WATCHMAN versus LACbes® device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: a single-center, propensity-matched study
2025
Overview
Background
Different left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices have been introduced into the clinical setting. A new dual-seal mechanism LACbes® occluder with isogenous barbs for LAAC has been designed to facilitate easier delivery and improve safety. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of the WATCHMAN with those of the LACbes® device for LAAC.
Methods
Consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who had undergone LAAC performed using a WATCHMAN or LACbes® device from June 2016 to February 2022 were included. The primary efficacy endpoint included ischemic stroke, cardiovascular/unexplained death and device-related thrombus, while the primary safety endpoint included major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding events during clinical follow-ups. 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed.
Results
After PSM, 184 patients were included in each group. The mean CHA
2
DS
2
-VASc score was 3.1 ± 1.5 (LACbes®) vs. 3.1 ± 1.4 (WATCHMAN), and the HAS-BLED score was 2.7 ± 1.1 vs. 2.7 ± 1.0. At a mean follow-up of 2.5 ± 1.5 vs. 2.4 ± 0.9 years, the defined three endpoints were comparable between the two groups. The occurrence of all-cause stroke was lower in 5/452 (1.8%) with LACbes® vs. 16/433 (3.7%) with WATCHMAN occluders (HR, 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18–0.89, P = 0.023), and the incidence of any bleeding was higher in the WATCHMAN group (41/433, 9.5% vs. 8/452, 1.8%; HR, 0.19, 95% CI, 0.11–0.33).
Conclusion
The LACbes® occluder exhibited comparable safety and efficacy of stroke prevention for AF when compared with the WATCHMAN device.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
Subject
/ Aspirin
/ Atrial Appendage - diagnostic imaging
/ Atrial Appendage - physiopathology
/ Atrial Fibrillation - complications
/ Atrial Fibrillation - diagnosis
/ Atrial Fibrillation - diagnostic imaging
/ Atrial Fibrillation - mortality
/ Atrial Fibrillation - physiopathology
/ Atrial Fibrillation - therapy
/ Bleeding
/ Cardiac Catheterization - adverse effects
/ Cardiac Catheterization - instrumentation
/ Cardiac Catheterization - mortality
/ Cardiovascular instruments, Implanted
/ Complications and side effects
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Ischemia
/ Ischemic Stroke - prevention & control
/ Left Atrial Appendage Closure
/ Male
/ Medicine
/ Patients
/ Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure
/ Stroke
