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.