Single‐Operator Left atrial appendage Occlusion utilizing Conscious sedation TEE, Lack of Outpatient pre‐imaging, and Same‐day Expedited discharge (SOLO‐CLOSE): A comparison with conventional approach

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundLeft atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with WATCHMAN currently requires preprocedural imaging, general anesthesia, and inpatient overnight admission. We sought to facilitate simplification of LAAO.AimsWe describe and compare SOLO‐CLOSE (single‐operator LAA occlusion utilizing conscious sedation TEE, lack of outpatient pre‐imaging, and same‐day expedited discharge) with the conventional approach (CA).MethodsA single‐center retrospective analysis of 163 patients undergoing LAAO between January 2017 and April 2022 was conducted. The SOLO‐CLOSE protocol was enacted on December 1, 2020. Before this date, we utilized the CA. The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as successful LAAO with ≤5 mm peri‐device leak at time of closure. The primary safety endpoint was the composite incidence of all‐cause deaths, any cerebrovascular accident (CVA), device embolization, pericardial effusion, or major postprocedure bleeding within 7 days of the index procedure. Procedure times, 7‐day readmission rates, and cost analytics were collected as well.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar in both cohorts. Congestive heart failure (37.5% vs. 11.1%) and malignancy (28.8% vs. 12.5%) were higher in SOLO‐CLOSE. Median CHA2D2SVASc score was 5 in both cohorts. The primary efficacy endpoint was met 100% in both cohorts. Primary safety endpoint was similar between cohorts (p = 0.078). Mean procedure time was 30 min shorter in SOLO‐CLOSE (p < 0.01). Seven‐day readmissions for SOLO‐CLOSE was zero. After SOLO‐CLOSE implementation, there was a 188% increase in positive contribution margin per case.ConclusionsThe SOLO‐CLOSE methodology offers similar efficacy and safety when compared to the CA, while improving clinical efficiency, reducing procedural times, and increasing economic benefit.