Left Atrial Appendage: Physiology, Pathology, and Role as a Therapeutic Target

Table 2

ACP registries in comparison with PROTECT AF.

In-hospital											Follow-up
Registry	Patients	Mean age; (year 5)	Mean CHADS2 score	Technical success	Stroke	Pericardial effusion conservative	Tamponade; (drainage)	Device embolization	Death; (all causes)	Total adverse events	Device embolization	Pericardial effusion	Thrombus on device	Stroke	Death
Italian	100			100/100	0		2/100	0	0	2/100
Registry				100%			2%			2%
Dual Centre	131			131/131	0	1/131	0	0	0	1/131
Hamburg				100%		1%				0.8%
Bern
ACP EU Post	204	74 ± 9	2.6 ± 1.3	197/204	0		3/204	3	0	6/204	1	0	5/204
Market				97%			1.5%			2.9%			2.4%
Registry
Spanish	35	75 ± 6	2.4 ± 1.3	34/35	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5/35	1/35	3/35
Registry				97%									14%	3%	9%
Initial	143	74 ± 9	—	132/137	3/143	4/143	5/143	2/143	0	10/143
European				96%	2.1%	3%	3.5%	1.4%		7%
Experience
Bern LAA	100	72 ± 10	2.5 ± 1.3	98/100	1/100	2/100	1/100	2/100	0	6/100
Occlusion				98%		2%	1%	2%		6%
Registry
Initial Asian	20	68 ± 9	2.3 ± 1.3	19/20	0	0	0	0	0	*	—	—	—	—	—
Experience				95%
Canadian	52	74 ± 8	3 (2–4)	51/52	0	1/52	1/52	1/52	0	2/52	0	1/52	0	1/52	3/52
Registry				98%		2%	2%	2%		4%		2%		2%	6%
PROTECT AF	463	72 ± 9	2.2 ± 1.2	408/463	5/463	8/463	22/463	3/463	0	36/463	2/463	0		16/694	21/705
				88%	1%	1%	5%	1%		8%	0.4%			2.3%	3.0%

*: Air embolism in right coronary artery, one esophageal injury during TOE.