Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Prevalence of Peridevice Leak in Patients With Left Atrial Appendage-Occlusion vs Without Electrically Isolated Left Atrial Appendage
Main finding · Leak of any sizeResult — go to the resultOdds ratio 0.662 95% CI 0.488–0.900Authors' conclusion
In this large prospective series of real-world patients, prior LAAI was seen to be associated with a lower risk of PDL in patients with AF and a Watchman device in situ.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing Watchman left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO)
- Participants
- 495 vs 810
- Exposure
- Prior LAA isolation vs no LAA isolation in Watchman LAAO
- Group 1n = 495
- Group 2n = 810reference
- Outcome
- Peridevice leak of any size on transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) color Doppler
- Follow-up
- 45 to 60 days post-implantation
Methodological detailsconsecutive patients
- Consecutive patients
Main finding
Leak of any size · 45 to 60 days
Odds ratio
0.662
95% CI 0.488–0.900
P = 0.008
Events by group
Group 1vs Group 2
OR 0.662 (95% CI 0.488–0.900); P = 0.008
As reported in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Leaks ≥3 mm (among leaks) · 45 to 60 days
P < 0.001
Original publication
Prevalence of Peridevice Leak in Patients With Left Atrial Appendage-Occlusion vs Without Electrically Isolated Left Atrial Appendage. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. Published 16 October 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →