Skip to main content
. 2011 Mar 30;2011:752808. doi: 10.4061/2011/752808

Table 3.

Studies evaluating percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices.

No. Study Study design Year Device Comparison Subjects (n) Population Followup (mean) Results Adverse events
(1) Meier et al. [36] Prospective 2003 Amplatzer Septal Occluder None 16 AF-continuous/paroxysmal; c/i to coumadin 4 months 0% stroke/TIA Device embolization (1)

(2) Sievert et al. [37] Prospective 2002 PLAATO None 15 Chronic, nonrheumatic AF; c/i to coumadin 1 month 0% stroke/TIA Hemopericardium (1), device exchange (4)

(3) Ostermayer et al. [38] Prospective 2005 PLAATO None 111 Chronic nonrheumatic AF patients at risk for stroke; c/i to coumadin 10 months Stroke/TIA 2.2% (versus estimated 6.3%) Implant failure (3), Hemopericardium (5)

(4) Block et al. [39] Prospective 2009 PLAATO None 64 C/P AF; CHADS2 ≥ 2; c/i to coumadin 5 years Stroke 3.8% (versus estimated 6.6%) Cardiac tamponade (1), (%)

(5) Sick et al. [40] Prospective 2007 WATCHMAN None 75 C/P AF; CHADS2 ≥ 1; eligible for coumadin 2 years 0% stroke/TIA Implant failure (2), device failure, embolization, or pericardial effusion (6), TIA's (2)

(6) PROTECT AF [45] Randomized Controlled Trial 2009 WATCHMAN Warfarin 707 C/P AF; CHADS2 ≥ 1; eligible for coumadin 18 months >99% probability of noninferiority for stroke/TIA prevention Adverse events higher among controls

AF: atrial fibrillation, c/i: contraindication, C/P: Chronic/Paroxysmal, TIA: transient ischemic attack, PLAATO: percutaneous left atrial appendage transcatheter occlusion, and PROTECT AF: WATCHMAN left atrial appendage system for embolic protection in patients with atrial fibrillation.