Saibal Kar

Publications (2)28.9 Total impact

• Article: The clinical impact of incomplete left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman Device in patients with atrial fibrillation: a PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) substudy.

  Juan F Viles-Gonzalez, Saibal Kar, Pamela Douglas, Srinivas Dukkipati, Ted Feldman, Rodney Horton, David Holmes, Vivek Y Reddy
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency and clinical impact of incomplete left atrial appendage (LAA) sealing and consequent peri-device residual blood flow in patients undergoing percutaneous LAA closure with the Watchman device (Atritech, Inc., Plymouth, Minnesota). During percutaneous LAA closure for stroke prophylaxis, the geometric variability of the LAA ostium may result in an incomplete seal of the LAA. On the one hand, this could enhance thrombus formation and embolization of thrombi around the device into the circulation; on the other hand, the relatively small size of these leaks may preclude clinically relevant embolizations. Patients randomly assigned to device implantation in the PROTECT AF (Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage Versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial were analyzed. Transesophageal echocardiography was performed at 45 days, 6 months, and 12 months. Per the study protocol, patients discontinued warfarin therapy if the 45-day Transesophageal echocardiogram revealed either minimal or no peri-device flow (jet ≤5 mm width). The impact of peri-device flow severity, defined as minor, moderate, or major (<1 mm, 1 mm to 3 mm, >3 mm, respectively) on the composite primary efficacy endpoint (stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death) is expressed as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Transesophageal echocardiography follow-up revealed that 32.0% of implanted patients had at least some degree of peri-device flow at 12 months. The HR of the primary efficacy endpoint per 1 mm larger per-device flow was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.62 to 1.14; p = 0.256). Compared to patients with no peri-device flow, the HRs were 0.85 (95% CI: 0.11 to 6.40), 0.83 (95% CI: 0.33 to 2.09), and 0.48 (95% CI: 0.11 to 2.09) for minor, moderate, and major peri-device flow, respectively (p = 0.798). Compared to patients with no peri-device flow who discontinued warfarin, the HR for patients with any peri-device flow and continuing warfarin was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.14 to 2.71; p = 0.530). These data indicate that residual peri-device flow into the LAA after percutaneous closure with the Watchman device was common, and is not associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism. This finding should be interpreted with caution as the low event rate decreases the confidence of this conclusion.
  Journal of the American College of Cardiology 03/2012; 59(10):923-9. · 14.16 Impact Factor
• Article: Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: results from the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with AF (PROTECT AF) clinical trial and the Continued Access Registry.

  Vivek Y Reddy, David Holmes, Shephal K Doshi, Petr Neuzil, Saibal Kar
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With AF (PROTECT AF) randomized trial compared left atrial appendage closure against warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with CHADS₂ ≥1. Although the study met the primary efficacy end point of being noninferior to warfarin therapy for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism/cardiovascular death, there was a significantly higher risk of complications, predominantly pericardial effusion and procedural stroke related to air embolism. Here, we report the influence of experience on the safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. The study cohort for this analysis included patients in the PROTECT AF trial who underwent attempted device left atrial appendage closure (n=542 patients) and those from a subsequent nonrandomized registry of patients undergoing Watchman implantation (Continued Access Protocol [CAP] Registry; n=460 patients). The safety end point included bleeding- and procedure-related events (pericardial effusion, stroke, device embolization). There was a significant decline in the rate of procedure- or device-related safety events within 7 days of the procedure across the 2 studies, with 7.7% and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (P=0.007), and between the first and second halves of PROTECT AF and CAP, with 10.0%, 5.5%, and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (P=0.006). The rate of serious pericardial effusion within 7 days of implantation, which had made up >50% of the safety events in PROTECT AF, was lower in the CAP Registry (5.0% versus 2.2%, respectively; P=0.019). There was a similar experience-related improvement in procedure-related stroke (0.9% versus 0%, respectively; P=0.039). Finally, the functional impact of these safety events, as defined by significant disability or death, was statistically superior in the Watchman group compared with the warfarin group in PROTECT AF. This remained true whether significance was defined as a change in the modified Rankin score of ≥1, ≥2, or ≥3 (1.8 versus 4.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.82; 1.5 versus 3.7 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.82; and 1.4 versus 3.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.88, respectively). As with all interventional procedures, there is a significant improvement in the safety of Watchman left atrial appendage closure with increased operator experience. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00129545.
  Circulation 02/2011; 123(4):417-24. · 14.74 Impact Factor