Successful percutaneous retrieval of a dislodged left atrial appendage occlusion device with double transseptal sheaths and biopsy bioptome

2014 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 328-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ngai-Yin Chan ◽  
Chi-Chung Choy ◽  
Chun-Leung Lau
Keyword(s):  
Left Atrial ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage ◽  
Atrial Appendage ◽  
Percutaneous Retrieval ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion ◽  
Occlusion Device

scholarly journals Game changer? A sporting indication to implant a left atrial appendage closure device in a rugby player with atrial fibrillation: a case report

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Andre Briosa e Gala ◽  
Andrew Cox ◽  
Michael Pope ◽  
Timothy Betts
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Left Atrial ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Atrial Appendage ◽  
Rugby Player ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion ◽  
Occlusion Device

Abstract Background Caring for athletes with cardiac disease requires an approach that caters to the specific needs of the athlete. Case summary A 27-year-old professional rugby player was admitted with decompensated heart failure and atrial fibrillation (AF). Transthoracic echocardiogram showed features in keeping with a dilated cardiomyopathy with severe left ventricular (LV) systolic impairment. He made good progress on evidence-based heart failure medication and his LV systolic function returned to normal. He failed to maintain sinus rhythm with cardioversion and remained in persistent AF. He then suffered a transient ischaemic attack despite appropriate anticoagulation. At 1-year follow-up, he was asymptomatic and against medical advice continued to play competitive rugby whilst taking rivaroxaban. He subsequently underwent implantation with a percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion device, allowing him to discontinue anticoagulation, reduce his bleeding risk and resume his career, whilst simultaneously lowering the thromboembolic risk. Discussion Counselling should include different management options aimed at minimizing the risks to athletes if they to return to competitive sports. Left atrial appendage occlusion devices are a suitable AF-related stroke prevention strategy in athletes competing in full-contact sports.

scholarly journals Early Experience Using a Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Device in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

2012 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yung Ly Kim ◽  
Boyoung Joung ◽  
Young Keun On ◽  
Chi Young Shim ◽  
Moon Hyoung Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Left Atrial ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage ◽  
Early Experience ◽  
Atrial Appendage ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion ◽  
Occlusion Device

scholarly journals ACHIEVING LOW RADIATION EXPOSURE AND CONTRAST USAGE WITHOUT COMPROMISING SAFETY AND EFFICACY DURING WATCHMAN LEFT ATRIAL APPENDAGE OCCLUSION DEVICE IMPLANT

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 6-11
Author(s):  
J. А. Reiss ◽  
D. A. Evans
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Radiation Exposure ◽  
Left Atrial ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Atrial Appendage ◽  
Closure Device ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion ◽  
Occlusion Device ◽  
Over Time

The study demonstrates the safety, feasibility and effectiveness of a comprehensive approach to minimize fluoroscopy and contrast use during Watchman left atrial closure device implantation.Background. The introduction of Watchman left atrial appendage occlusion device (WM) has provided an effective alternative to anticoagulation for patients with a high risk of cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) and high risk of bleeding and who are unable to take long-term anticoagulation therapy. Since its introduction, WM has been implanted more than 50,000 times worldwide. While the implant procedure is relatively safe, it involves the use of fluoroscopy and contrast and, as such, poses some associated risk to patient safety. The adoption of procedural techniques which reduce fluoroscopy exposure and contrast use have the potential to provide clinical patient benefit without compromising safety or efficacy. Aim To demonstrate that WM implant can be performed with minimal exposure to both ionizing radiation and IV contrast without compromising safety or efficacy.Methods. A retrospective chart review of all 75 consecutive Watchman implantations by a single operator at a single center between December 2015 and December 2017. Every effort to optimize the WM implant procedure and minimize radiation and contrast exposure was incorporated as implant techniques evolved. Contrast and radiation exposure data were collected and analyzed year-over-year.Results. Charts from 75 consecutive cases were reviewed with all cases at index procedure (100%), and included the majority of patients presenting in paroxysmal AF (63%). Baseline patient characteristics were consistent across years. Procedural characteristics also were consistent over time. The median absorbed radiation dose was low (75 mGy in 2015) and did not change significantly over time. Similarly, the median fluoroscopy time used after the initial case was low (2.8 minutes) and did not vary. 73 of 75 (97%) of procedures resulted in successful implantation. There were no procedural complications; notably, no cases resulted in stroke, death, pericardial effusion, vascular accidents or device embolization.Conclusion.The current generation of WM can be successfully implanted using low fluoroscopy and contrast without compromising safety or efficacy using the techniques described.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document