Advertisement

Incidence and causes of in-hospital outcomes and 30-day readmissions after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: A US nationwide retrospective cohort study using claims data

Published:September 17, 2019DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.09.018

      Background

      Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (pLAAC) emerged as an option for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation ineligible for long-term anticoagulation. Real-world data on pLAAC's in-hospital and 30-day readmission measures are limited.

      Objective

      We sought to report the nationwide incidence of the above outcomes using 2016 claims data.

      Methods

      We used the National Inpatient Sample for in-hospital outcomes and Nationwide Readmissions Database for readmissions. We identified hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and pLAAC procedure by using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes and compared the outcomes mentioned above between the endocardial and epicardial cohorts. Statistical analyses were performed using R 3.3.2.

      Results

      Among 5480 pLAAC procedures (endocardial: 5145; epicardial: 335), the in-hospital mortality was 0.3%. Endocardial left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) had lower complications (8.5% vs 25.4%; P < .001) and shorter length of stay median [interquartile range] 1 [1–1] day vs 2 [1–3] days; P < .001) but higher hospitalization cost (24.13 [18.45–30.17] × 1000 dollars vs 21.21 [14.03–27.86] × 1000 dollars; P = .016). The most common complications include pericardial (endocardial vs epicardial: 3% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and renal failure (1.4% vs 6.0%; P = .004). Epicardial LAAC had higher 30-day unplanned readmissions (19.5% vs 8.3%; P = .001), with the most common reason being pericarditis and/or effusion (33.9%).

      Conclusion

      Endocardial LAAC had lower complications and 30-day readmissions but higher hospitalization cost. Although epicardial LAAC showed higher complications, given recent improvements in its technique, and postprocedural care demonstrated a significant reduction in pericardial complications, more contemporary data comparing these outcomes are needed.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Heart Rhythm
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Mozaffarian D.
        • Benjamin E.J.
        • Go A.S.
        • et al.
        Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2016 Update: a report from the American Heart Association.
        Circulation. 2016; 133: e38-e360
        • Chugh S.S.
        • Havmoeller R.
        • Narayanan K.
        • et al.
        Worldwide epidemiology of atrial fibrillation: a Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study.
        Circulation. 2014; 129: 837-847
        • Ruff C.T.
        • Giugliano R.P.
        • Braunwald E.
        • et al.
        Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials.
        Lancet. 2014; 383: 955-962
        • Hsu J.C.
        • Maddox T.M.
        • Kennedy K.F.
        • et al.
        Oral anticoagulant therapy prescription in patients with atrial fibrillation across the spectrum of stroke risk: insights from the NCDR PINNACLE Registry.
        JAMA Cardiol. 2016; 1: 55-62
        • Redfors B.
        • Gray W.A.
        • Lee R.J.
        • Ellenbogen K.A.
        • Bonafede M.
        • Ben-Yehuda O.
        Patients with atrial fibrillation who are not on anticoagulant treatment due to increased bleeding risk are common and have a high risk of stroke.
        JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2017; 3: 1369-1376
        • del Conde I.
        • Halperin J.L.
        Ineligibility for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation.
        Am J Med. 2013; 126: 105-111
        • Blackshear J.L.
        • Odell J.A.
        Appendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillation.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 1996; 61: 755-759
        • Jazayeri M.-A.
        • Vuddanda V.
        • Turagam M.K.
        • et al.
        Safety profiles of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices: an analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database from 2009 to 2016.
        J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2018; 29: 5-13
        • Badheka A.O.
        • Chothani A.
        • Mehta K.
        • et al.
        Utilization and adverse outcomes of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation in the United States: the influence of hospital volume.
        Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015; 8: 42-48
        • Jencks S.F.
        • Williams M.V.
        • Coleman E.A.
        Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1418-1428
      1. ICD-10. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website.
        (Accessed August 28, 2019)
      2. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. The EQUATOR Network website.
        (Accessed August 28, 2019)
      3. Introduction to the HCUP Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD), 2013. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website.
        (Accessed August 28, 2019)
        • Reddy V.Y.
        • Gibson D.N.
        • Kar S.
        • et al.
        Post-approval U.S. experience with left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 69: 253-261
        • Price M.J.
        • Gibson D.N.
        • Yakubov S.J.
        • et al.
        Early safety and efficacy of percutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation: results from the U.S. transcatheter LAA ligation consortium.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64: 565-572
        • Massumi A.
        • Chelu M.G.
        • Nazeri A.
        • et al.
        Initial experience with a novel percutaneous left atrial appendage exclusion device in patients with atrial fibrillation, increased stroke risk, and contraindications to anticoagulation.
        Am J Cardiol. 2013; 111: 869-873
        • Bartus K.
        • Han F.T.
        • Bednarek J.
        • et al.
        Percutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation using the LARIAT device in patients with atrial fibrillation: initial clinical experience.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62: 108-118
        • Miller M.A.
        • Gangireddy S.R.
        • Doshi S.K.
        • et al.
        Multicenter study on acute and long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using an epicardial suture snaring device.
        Heart Rhythm. 2014; 11: 1853-1859
        • Srivastava M.C.
        • See V.Y.
        • Dawood M.Y.
        • Price M.J.
        A review of the LARIAT device: insights from the cumulative clinical experience.
        Springerplus. 2015; 4: 522
        • Reddy V.Y.
        • Holmes D.
        • Doshi S.K.
        • Neuzil P.
        • Kar S.
        Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure clinical perspective.
        Circulation. 2011; 123: 417-424
        • Boersma L.V.
        • 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
        • Dukkipati S.R.
        • Kar S.
        • Holmes D.R.
        • et al.
        Device-related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure.
        Circulation. 2018; 138: 874-885
        • Chatterjee S.
        • Herrmann H.C.
        • Wilensky R.L.
        • et al.
        Safety and procedural success of left atrial appendage exclusion with the Lariat device: a systematic review of published reports and analytic review of the FDA MAUDE database.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175: 1104-1109
        • Lakkireddy D.
        • Afzal M.R.
        • Lee R.J.
        • et al.
        Short and long-term outcomes of percutaneous left atrial appendage suture ligation: results from a US multicenter evaluation.
        Heart Rhythm. 2016; 13: 1030-1036
        • Bueno H.
        • Ross J.S.
        • Wang Y.
        • et al.
        Trends in length of stay and short-term outcomes among Medicare patients hospitalized for heart failure, 1993-2006.
        JAMA. 2010; 303: 2141-2147
        • Curtis J.P.
        • Schreiner G.
        • Wang Y.
        • et al.
        All-cause readmission and repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention in a cohort of Medicare patients.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 54: 903-907
        • Garg J.
        • Patel B.
        • Chaudhary R.
        • et al.
        Predictors of 30-day readmissions after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in the USA.
        J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019; 55: 243-250
        • Kolte D.
        • Khera S.
        • Rizwan Sardar M.
        • et al.
        Thirty-day readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States.
        Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10
        • Gunda S.
        • Reddy M.
        • Nath J.
        • et al.
        Impact of periprocedural colchicine on postprocedural management in patients undergoing a left atrial appendage ligation using LARIAT.
        J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016; 27: 60-64
        • Gunda S.
        • Reddy M.
        • Pillarisetti J.
        • et al.
        Differences in complication rates between large bore needle and a long micropuncture needle during epicardial access: time to change clinical practice?.
        Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2015; 8: 890-895