References
1. Holmes DR, Jr., Kar S, Price MJ, et al. Prospective randomized
evaluation of the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure device in
patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the
PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(1):1-12.
2. Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Turi ZG, et al. Percutaneous closure of the left
atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in
patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial.Lancet. 2009;374(9689):534-542.
3. Reddy VY, Doshi SK, Kar S, et al. 5-Year Outcomes After Left Atrial
Appendage Closure: From the PREVAIL and PROTECT AF Trials. J Am
Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(24):2964-2975.
4. Landmesser U, Tondo C, Camm J, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion
with the AMPLATZER Amulet device: one-year follow-up from the
prospective global Amulet observational registry.EuroIntervention. 2018;14(5):e590-e597.
5. Tzikas A, Shakir S, Gafoor S, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion
for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: multicentre experience
with the AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug. EuroIntervention.2016;11(10):1170-1179.
6. Wintgens L, Romanov A, Phillips K, et al. Combined atrial
fibrillation ablation and left atrial appendage closure: long-term
follow-up from a large multicentre registry. Europace.2018;20(11):1783-1789.
7. Fassini G, Conti S, Moltrasio M, et al. Concomitant cryoballoon
ablation and percutaneous closure of left atrial appendage in patients
with atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2016;18(11):1705-1710.
8. Calvo N, Salterain N, Arguedas H, et al. Combined catheter ablation
and left atrial appendage closure as a hybrid procedure for the
treatment of atrial fibrillation. Europace.2015;17(10):1533-1540.
9. Phillips KP, Romanov A, Artemenko S, et al. Combining left atrial
appendage closure and catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: 2-year
outcomes from a multinational registry. Europace.2020;22(2):225-231.
10. Huang H, Liu Y, Xu Y, et al. Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage
Closure With the LAmbre Device for Stroke Prevention in Atrial
Fibrillation: A Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Study. JACC
Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(21):2188-2194.
11. Park JW, Sievert H, Kleinecke C, et al. Left atrial appendage
occlusion with lambre in atrial fibrillation: Initial European
experience. Int J Cardiol. 2018;265:97-102.
12. Schnupp S, Liu XX, Buffle E, et al. Late clinical outcomes of lambre
versus amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure. J
Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020;31(4):934-942.
13. Feng XF, Zhang PP, Sun J, Wang QS, Li YG. Feasibility and Safety of
Left Atrial Appendage Closure Using the LAmbre Device in Patients with
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation with or Without Prior Catheter Ablation.Int Heart J. 2019;60(1):63-70.
14. Lam YY. A new left atrial appendage occluder (Lifetech LAmbre
Device) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Cardiovasc
Revasc Med. 2013;14(3):134-136.
15. Yang B, Jiang C, Lin Y, et al. STABLE-SR (Electrophysiological
Substrate Ablation in the Left Atrium During Sinus Rhythm) for the
Treatment of Nonparoxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Prospective,
Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial. Circ Arrhythm
Electrophysiol. 2017;10(11).
16. Oraii Yazdani K, Mitomo S, Ruparelia N, et al. Percutaneous left
atrial appendage occlusion with the Amulet device: The impact of device
disc position upon periprocedural and long-term outcomes. Catheter
Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93(1):120-127.
17. Schroeter MR, Danner BC, Hunlich M, Schillinger W. Uncommon delayed
and late complications after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure
with Amplatzer((R)) Cardiac Plug. Clin Res Cardiol.2014;103(4):285-290.
18. Schmidt B, Betts TR, Sievert H, et al. Incidence of pericardial
effusion after left atrial appendage closure: The impact of underlying
heart rhythm-Data from the EWOLUTION study. J Cardiovasc
Electrophysiol. 2018;29(7):973-978.
19. Wolfrum M, Attinger-Toller A, Shakir S, et al. Percutaneous left
atrial appendage occlusion: Effect of device positioning on outcome.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88(4):656-664.
Figure legends
Figure
1
Structural characteristics of the LAmbre device and umbrella with or
without full opening in fluoroscopic imaging. A) Structural
characteristics of the LAmbre device. B) The nadir of U-shaped hooks of
the device at the same level as a radio-opaque marker connecting the
umbrella and cover is a sign of full opening of the umbrella. C) The
nadir of U-shaped hooks of the device at a different level to that of a
radio-opaque marker is a sign of an umbrella without full opening.
Figure 2 Step by step illustration of implantation of the LAmbre device
in the MM group.
A) The distal umbrella was initially half deployed outside of the LAA
(defined as when a radio-opaque marker of the LAmbre device was located
between two distal marker bands at the end of the delivery sheath and it
was closer to the proximal marker band). B) Then it was gently
“en-bloc” advanced into the proximal part of the LAA. C) Complete
deployment of the umbrella to the landing zone was subsequently achieved
by pushing out the device from the delivery sheath. D) The sheath was
withdrawn to expose the proximal cover.
Figure 3 Different opening status of the umbrella after release in
patients with delayed PE/PT. Opening status of the umbrella after
release in patients with delayed PE/PT in the CM group, including the
9th patient (A), the 31st patient
(B), the 42nd patient (C), the 52ndpatient (D), and the 59th patient (E). Opening status
of the umbrella after release in patients with delayed PT in the MM
group, including the 110th patient (F) and the
174th patient (G).
Figure 4 Residual flow at first TEE follow-up A) in total; B) in
isolated LAAC; and C) in the combined procedure.