Skip to main content
Journal of Investigative Medicine High Impact Case Reports logoLink to Journal of Investigative Medicine High Impact Case Reports
. 2020 Aug 5;8:2324709620947622. doi: 10.1177/2324709620947622

Reoccurrence of Stroke in a Patient With Peri-Device Leak of WATCHMAN Device

Jordan Perkins 1, Riwaj Bhagat 1,, Matthew Nichols 1, Jignesh Shah 1
PMCID: PMC7430078  PMID: 32755246

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation is the leading cause of cardioembolic stroke, with emboli most commonly originating from the left atrial appendage. We report the case of a 71-year-old male with left atrial appendage closure via implantation of the WATCHMAN device, due to possible anticoagulation therapy failure and increased bleeding risk, following a stroke. Following a new stroke over a year later, a 1.8-mm peri-device leak was observed. Surgical records noted a minimal (<5 mm jet flow) peri-device leak after the installation, which was considered successful WATCHMAN implantation per protocol. This case highlights the persistent risk of cardioembolic stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation despite device implantation and questions the significance of peri-device leak and further management with anticoagulation for recurrent stroke.

Keywords: atrial fibrillation, peri-device leak, stroke, WATCHMAN

Introduction

Atrial fibrillation puts affected individuals at an increased risk of stroke due to the propensity for clot formation. Specifically, in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), the majority of clots are formed within the left atrial appendage (LAA) due to a combination of fibrosis, inflammation, and blood flow stasis. Additional studies have shown that the specific morphology of the LAA may also affect the chance of clot formation.1 Consequently, obliteration or occlusion of LAA in NVAF is considered an effective measure for stroke prevention. This nonpharmacological measure is only considered for the patients not suitable for oral anticoagulation. In this case, we present a patient with an LAA occlusion device (WATCHMAN) with a 1.8-mm peri-device leak (PDL) seen 17 months postimplantation for a stroke of suspected thromboembolic origin. A waiver of informed consent was granted by the institutional review board.

Case Presentation

Initially, a 71-year-old right-handed male with a history of NVAF presented with confusion without lateralizing neurological deficits. The patient was compliant on his apixaban, metoprolol, and amiodarone for NVAF. His CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 (prior stroke, hypertension, age). Brain magnetic resonance imaging showed a left frontal lobe stroke. Computed tomography angiography of head and neck vessels showed patent anterior and posterior circulation without calcification, fibromuscular dysplasia, soft plaques, or stenosis.

Transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) showed moderate-to-severe left atrial enlargement, and minimal patent foramen ovale (PFO). Doppler ultrasound of the lower extremity was negative for deep vein thrombosis. Blood test showed low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 61 mg/dL and a hemoglobin A1C of 5.2%. The location of stroke was cortical, and based on the above findings the etiology was suspected to be cardioembolic. His HAS-BLED score was 3 (prior stroke, age, and antiplatelet therapy). Secondary to the high risk of bleeding on anticoagulation, a left atrial appendage occlusive device (WATCHMAN) was implanted, and per protocol, warfarin and aspirin was continued for initial 45 days postimplantation. Repeat TEE after 45 days showed intact device with 3-mm PDL and no thrombus. Thereafter, dual antiplatelet therapy was continued without anticoagulation therapy.

Seventeen months later, despite compliance with medication, the patient was readmitted after experiencing left upper extremity numbness without weakness. Brain magnetic resonance imaging showed embolic appearing cortical stroke confined in the posterior superior right middle cerebral artery territory (Figure 1). Repeat computed tomography angiography of the head and neck vessels showed no significant change compared with the previous imaging. Hypercoagulability panel that included antiphospholipid antibodies, lipoprotein(a), factor V Leiden, prothrombin G20210A, protein C/S, and antithrombin were negative. Aspirin and clopidogrel response test showed adequate platelet inhibition. The patient’s cardiac rate and rhythm were well controlled, and no evidence of atrial fibrillation was found during inpatient stay. Repeat TEE showed an intact WATCHMAN device with 1.8-mm PDL, minimal PFO, and no thrombus (Figure 2). There was no blood flow stasis, no left ventricular dyskinesia, and ejection fraction was 60%. Computed tomography of chest and abdomen showed no mass lesions suggestive of tumor. Previous colonoscopy study, cancer screening test for his age group, was unremarkable. Due to the persistent risk of a cardioembolic stroke, he was treated with continuous heparin while hospitalized and discharged home on rivaroxaban 20 mg daily, aspirin 81 mg, and atorvastatin 80 mg.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Magnetic resonance imaging of brain, diffusion-weighted imaging (A) and apparent diffusion coefficient (B), shows multiple areas of diffusion restriction involving posterior superior right middle cerebral artery territory.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Transesophageal echocardiogram shows left atrium (yellow arrow), left atrial appendage (red arrow), intact WATCHMAN device (white line), and peri-device leak (green arrow).

Discussion

The WATCHMAN device (Boston Scientific) is the only US Food and Drug Administration–approved LAA closure device in patients with NVAF where warfarin therapy is indicated based on CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc scores, but are not suitable for such therapy secondary to varying degrees of bleeding risk, poor compliance, intolerance, and high fall risk.2 The contraindications for implanting a WATCHMAN device are visualized intracardiac thrombus, high-risk PFO, Class 4 heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, symptomatic coronary artery disease, LAA anatomy that is incompatible, any contraindications for percutaneous catheterization procedures, contraindications to the use of warfarin, aspirin, or clopidogrel, or if the patient has a known hypersensitivity to the device components.3 The PROTECT AF and PREVAIL, noninferiority (NI) randomized control trials, were conducted for WATCHMAN device compared with warfarin treatment. Antithrombotic regimen postimplantation includes warfarin and aspirin for 45 days, followed by a regimen of aspirin and clopidogrel for 6 months, and finally, a transition to aspirin monotherapy lifelong.4,5 PROTECT AF trial showed NI margins (NI: probability criterion ≥97.5%) to primary efficacy endpoint of composite (hemorrhagic and ischemic) stroke (NI >99.9%), systemic embolism (SE), and cardiovascular event/unexplained death (NI >99.9%). However, it did not demonstrate NI to ischemic stroke alone (NI = 71.8%).5 The primary efficacy endpoint of PROTECT AF trial did not achieve NI in the PREVAIL trial (NI margin: upper boundary of 95% Color Rendering Index ≥1.75) but showed NI to warfarin for ischemic stroke prevention or SE >7 days’ postprocedure.4 At 5-year follow-up, the differences in hemorrhagic stroke, disabling/fatal stroke, cardiovascular/unexplained death, all-cause death, and postprocedure bleeding favored WATCHMAN device compared with warfarin therapy.6

So far, the incidence of WATCHMAN device failure leading to a stroke is rare.7 There are low rates of device-related thrombus,8,9 intradevice leak,10 device dislocation to the aortic arch causing acute heart failure,11 and LAA perforation.12 In PROTECTAF and PREVAIL trials, PDL with jet width <5 mm (single lobe) was seen up to 32% and 10%, respectively, after 1-year postimplantation of the device.4,5 Neither study classified these leaks as clinically worrisome and considered these as successful implantation.

This case highlights the persistent risk of cardioembolic stroke in NVAF despite successful WATCHMAN implantation. One of the landmark clinical trial for WATCHMAN device (PREVAIL) had failed to show noninferiority to prevent ischemic stroke. It is possible in NVAF, clots could still originate from the left atrial cavity.13 Several other mechanisms that could create a thromboembolism, including blood flow stasis, left ventricular dyskinesia, hypercoagulable state, and ulcerated atherosclerotic plaques, should be considered. In the absence of such mechanisms, a PDL could be the source of an embolic stroke considering the left atrial appendage is the primary source of clot formation.14 Knowledge gap exists regarding stroke with PDL and treatment strategy for recurrent strokes with WATCHMAN device. The clinical significance of PDL regarding various LAA morphologies, accurate assessment of uncovered lobes, accurate LAA sizing, ideal antithrombotic therapy, ideal patient selection, and management of recurrent stroke with LAA occlusive device warrants further studies.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Dr Arunpreet Kahlon, MD, for his assistance with interpreting the cardiac ultrasound.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics Approval: Our institution does not require ethical approval for reporting individual cases or case series.

Informed Consent: Informed consent for patient information to be published in this article was not obtained because a waiver was obtained by the institutional review board.

References

  • 1. Di Biase L, Santangeli P, Anselmino M, et al. Does the left atrial appendage morphology correlate with the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation? Results from a multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:531-538. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.04.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Lane DA, Lip GY. Use of the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc and HAS-BLED scores to aid decision making for thromboprophylaxis in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Circulation. 2012;126:860-865. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.060061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Boersma LV, Ince H, Kische S, et al. Efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure with WATCHMAN in patients with or without contraindication to oral anticoagulation: 1-year follow-up outcome data of the EWOLUTION trial. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14:1302-1308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. 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;64:1-12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. 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;374:534-542. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)61343-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. 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;70:2964-2975. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Huang WP, Zhang YH, He L, et al. Efficacy and safety of the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage system for stroke prevention in Chinese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a single-center, prospective, observational study. Chin Med J (Engl). 2017;130:434-438. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.199832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Boersma LV, Ince H, Kische S, et al. Evaluating real-world clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation patients receiving the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure technology: final 2-year outcome data of the EWOLUTION trial focusing on history of stroke and hemorrhage. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019;12:e006841. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.118.006841 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Main ML, Fan D, Reddy VY, et al. Assessment of device-related thrombus and associated clinical outcomes with the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure device for embolic protection in patients with atrial fibrillation (from the PROTECT-AF trial). Am J Cardiol. 2016;117:1127-1134. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.01.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Tower-Rader A, Wazni O, Jaber WA. Intradevice leak on late follow-up after Watchman implantation. CASE (Phila). 2018;2:192-196. doi: 10.1016/j.case.2018.05.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Deng H, Liao H, Liu Y, et al. Acute heart failure caused by dislocation of a WATCHMAN left atrial appendage occluder. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e97-e99. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.02.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Sarcon A, Roy D, Laughrun D, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion complicated by appendage perforation rescued by device deployment. J Investig Med High Impact Case Rep. 2018;6:2324709618800108. doi: 10.1177/2324709618800108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Blackshear JL, Odell JA. Appendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillation. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61:755-759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Katz ES, Tsiamtsiouris T, Applebaum RM, Schwartzbard A, Tunick PA, Kronzon I. Surgical left atrial appendage ligation is frequently incomplete: a transesophageal echocardiograhic study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:468-471. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(00)00765-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Investigative Medicine High Impact Case Reports are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES