Left Atrial Appendage Closure With a Second Generation Device

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. S163
Author(s):  
AO Abualsaud ◽  
XR Freixa ◽  
M Nosair ◽  
J Chan ◽  
A Tzikas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Left Atrial ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage ◽  
Atrial Appendage ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage Closure

Left atrial appendage closure using the amulet device: An initial experience with the second generation amplatzer cardiac plug

2014 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Cheung Chi Lam ◽  
Stefan Bertog ◽  
Sameer Gafoor ◽  
Laura Vaskelyte ◽  
Patrick Boehm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Left Atrial ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage ◽  
Atrial Appendage ◽  
Initial Experience ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage Closure

scholarly journals Comparison of the Feasibility and Safety of First- versus Second-Generation AMPLATZER™ Occluders for Left Atrial Appendage Closure

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baravan Al-Kassou ◽  
Heyder Omran
Keyword(s):  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Left Atrial ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Atrial Appendage ◽  
Fluoroscopy Time ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage Closure ◽  
Lower Radiation Dose ◽  
First And Second Generation

Introduction. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is considered an alternative to oral anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the first- and second-generation AMPLATZER Devices for LAAC, AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug (ACP) versus AMPLATZER Amulet™. Methods. Procedural data, such as fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and contrast-dye, as well as VARC criteria and major adverse events (MAEs) were assessed for both devices. The rate of peridevice leaks was analyzed at echocardiographic follow-up. Results. A total of 196 patients with AF underwent LAAC with the ACP (n=99) or Amulet device (n=97). The use of Amulet was associated with significantly lower fluoroscopy time (14.8 ± 7.4 min versus 10.6 ± 4.1 min; p<0.001), lower radiation dose (4833 ± 3360 cGy⁎cm2 versus 3206 ± 2169 cGy⁎cm2; p<0.001), and reduced amount of contrast-dye (150.2 ± 83.9 ml versus 128.8 ± 46.0 ml; p=0.03). Furthermore, LAAC with Amulet devices resulted in lower device-resizing rates (3 versus 16 cases; p=0.001). Peridevice leaks were less frequent in the Amulet group (12 versus 4; p=0.03). MAE occurred in 6 ACP and 4 Amulet patients (p=0.58). Conclusions. The Amulet device is associated with shorter fluoroscopy times and radiation dosages, reduced use of contrast-dye, lower recapture rates, and less peridevice leaks as compared to the ACP.

scholarly journals TCT-686 LEFT ATRIAL APPENDAGE CLOSURE WITH A SECOND GENERATION DEVICE

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (18) ◽  
pp. B210
Author(s):  
Ali O. Abualsaud ◽  
Xavier Freixa ◽  
Mohamed Nosair ◽  
Jason Leung Kwai Chan ◽  
Apostolos Tzikas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Left Atrial ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage ◽  
Atrial Appendage ◽  
Left Atrial Appendage Closure
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document