Background and Objectives: Left atrial appendage closure is an alternative treatment to reduce thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation in whom oral anticoagulation (OAC) is contraindicated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the complications profiles of the LARIAT and AtriClip devices and perform a comparison between them based on the MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database. Materials and Methods: The Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database was searched on 15 January 2023. For AtriClip, only reports regarding isolated procedures or procedures associated with minimally invasive ablation were included. Adverse effects and causes of death were defined based on the literature on the topic and the causes described in the reports. In total, 63 patients were included in the LARIAT group and 53 patients were included in the AtriClip group. Results: With the LARIAT device, the most common complication without device problems was pericardial effusion (n = 18, 52.9%), whereas this complication was not observed with AtriClip (p < 0.001). Postoperative bleeding was a second complication that occurred significantly more often in the LARIAT group-in 15 (44.1%) cases versus 1 (2.7%) case with AtriClip (p < 0.001). In addition, significant differences were found in the prevalence of stroke (LARIAT n = 0 vs. AtriClip n = 7, 18.9%, p = 0.012) and thrombus (LARIAT n = 2, 5.9% vs. n = 11, 29.7%, p = 0.013). Conclusions: Each type of left atrial appendage closure procedure is associated with device-specific requirements and complications that, if known, can be avoided.
Keywords: AtriClip; FDA; LARIAT; MAUDE; left atrial appendage; occlusion device.