Meet the AnchorMan: New LAAC device noninferior to Watchman after 1 year
An investigational left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) device out of China is noninferior to the Watchman 2.5 device from Boston Scientific when treating nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to new one-year findings published EuroIntervention.[1]
“The Watchman device was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2015 to reduce the risk of thromboembolism from the LAA in patients with non-valvular AFib who are at increased risk for stroke and systemic embolism and have an appropriate reason to seek a non-pharmacological alternative to warfarin; it is now widely used worldwide,” wrote first author Binhao Wang, MD, a researcher with the First Affiliated Hospital of Ningbo University, and colleagues. “A series of trials have proven the safety and efficacy of the Watchman device for stroke prevention; however, alternate LAAO devices are being developed to address variable LAA anatomy and to improve the ease of operator use.”
The new technology at the heart of this study was the AnchorMan LAAC device from MicroPort CardioFlow, a Chinese medtech company. AnchorMan is rounded at the distal end of the occluder, which was done to increase contact between the device and the LAA while limiting the risk of intraoperative or postoperative tissue damage. It also features 12 “3D folding” units that form a “semiclosed cage” and make it possible to implant the device at a lower depth.
MicroPort CardioFlow did fund this analysis. According to the research team, however, the company “had no role in data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”
Wang et al. explored data from 216 patients randomized to undergo treatment with the AnchorMan or Watchman 2.5 devices. The Watchman FLX and Watchman FLX Pro devices were not yet finalized when work began on this analysis.
The study’s primary endpoint, clinical success, occurred in 98.1% of patients for both groups. The secondary endpoint, echocardiography-defined LAA occlusion at 12 months, was also identical for the two groups. In addition, rates of all-cause death, stroke, major bleeding events and device-related complications were all comparable after that initial 12-month period.
One key difference between the devices was the fact that peridevice leak greater than 3 mm occurred less often in patients treated with the AnchorMan. The authors wrote that this “superior sealing performance” is likely due to the AnchorMan’s novel design.
In total, the authors wrote, these findings confirmed that the AnchorMan device was noninferior to the Watchman 2.5 device when reducing the risk of stroke in patients with non-valvular AFib. An additional randomized study comparing AnchorMan to the Watchman FLX and Watchman FLX Pro devices is already planned for the near future.
Read the full analysis here.
Michael has more than 19 years of experience as a professional writer and editor. He has written at length about cardiology, radiology, artificial intelligence and other key healthcare topics.