Amulet IDE
Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Clinical Question
Is the dual-seal mechanism Amulet LAA occluder noninferior to the single-seal Watchman device for safety and effectiveness in stroke prevention for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Bottom Line
The Amulet occluder was noninferior to the Watchman device for safety and effectiveness endpoints and superior for LAA occlusion rates, but had higher procedure-related complications that decreased with operator experience.
Major Points
- First large-scale randomized trial comparing different LAA occlusion devices
- Dual-seal mechanism (Amulet) versus single-seal mechanism (Watchman)
- 1878 patients randomized 1:1 at 108 sites across US and international centers
- Met all three primary endpoints for noninferiority in safety and effectiveness
- Superior LAA occlusion with Amulet (98.9% vs 96.8%)
- Higher procedural complications with Amulet, especially early in operator experience
- Similar rates of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and device-related thrombosis
Design
Study Type: Multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial
Randomization: 1
Blinding: Independent clinical events committee blinded to treatment assignment; echocardiographic core laboratory not blinded
Enrollment Period: September 2016 through March 2019
Follow-up Duration: 18 months
Centers: 108
Countries: United States, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland
Sample Size: 1878
Analysis: Intention-to-treat for effectiveness, per-protocol for safety; Kaplan-Meier method with Greenwood formula; Cox regression model; logistic regression; SAS software version 9.4
Inclusion Criteria
- ≥18 years of age
- Documented paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent nonvalvular atrial fibrillation
- Increased risk of stroke or systemic embolism (CHADS2 score ≥2 or CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥3)
- Suitable LAA anatomy for implanting both devices on TEE screening
- Suitable for anticoagulation therapy for 6 months
- Appropriate rationale to seek nonpharmacological alternative to oral anticoagulation
Exclusion Criteria
- Unsuitable LAA anatomy for one or both devices
- Various procedural contraindications
- Recent stroke or bleeding events
- Other cardiac conditions precluding procedure
Arms
| Field | Control | Amulet Occluder |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Percutaneous implantation of Watchman LAA occluder with single-seal mechanism, followed by aspirin plus warfarin for 6 weeks, then aspirin plus clopidogrel until 6 months, then aspirin indefinitely | Percutaneous implantation of Amulet LAA occluder with dual-seal mechanism (lobe and disc), discharged on aspirin plus clopidogrel or aspirin plus OAC at investigator discretion |
| Duration | Permanent device implant with variable anticoagulation duration | Permanent device implant with variable anticoagulation duration |
Outcomes
| Outcome | Type | Control | Intervention | HR / OR / RR | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Composite safety endpoint: procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months | Primary | 14.7% | 14.5% | <0.001 for noninferiority | |
| Primary effectiveness: ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months | Secondary | 2.8% | 2.8% | <0.001 for noninferiority | |
| LAA occlusion (residual jet ≤5mm) at 45 days | Secondary | 96.8% | 98.9% | 0.003 for superiority | |
| Stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular/unexplained death at 18 months | Secondary | 7.7% | 5.6% | <0.001 for noninferiority | |
| Major bleeding at 18 months | Secondary | 12.3% | 11.6% | 0.32 for superiority | |
| Procedure-related complications | Adverse | 2.5% | 4.5% | 1.86 (1.11 to 3.12) | 0.02 |
| All-cause death | Adverse | 5.1% | 3.9% | 0.76 (0.49 to 1.19) | 0.23 |
| Device-related thrombosis | Adverse | 4.5% | 3.3% | ||
| Pericardial effusion | Adverse | Lower frequency | Higher frequency | ||
| Device embolization | Adverse | Lower frequency | Higher frequency |
Subgroup Analysis
Prespecified subgroup analyses showed no evidence that differences in results between groups were different across subgroup strata for any primary endpoints
Criticisms
- Open-label design with no blinding of investigators or patients
- High number of patients excluded due to unsuitable anatomy, limiting generalizability
- Echocardiographic core laboratory was not blinded
- Comparison with first-generation Watchman device rather than newer Watchman FLX
- US sites had no previous Amulet experience, potentially contributing to higher complication rates
- Unknown optimal antithrombotic regimen for best stroke/bleeding risk balance
- Higher late pericardial effusion rates in Amulet patients on OAC needs further study
- Death as competing risk for primary efficacy endpoint not accounted for in time-to-event analyses
Funding
Abbott
Based on: Amulet IDE (Circulation, 2021)
Authors: Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, David Thaler, Christopher R. Ellis, ..., Stephan Windecker
Citation: Circulation. 2021;144:1543–1552. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057063
Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.