Background Device-related thrombosis (DRT) is a common finding after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and is associated with worse outcomes. As women are underrepresented in clinical studies, further understanding of sex differences in DRT patients is warranted. Methods and Results This sub-analysis from the EUROC-DRT-registry compromises 176 patients with diagnosis of DRT after LAAC. Women, who accounted for 34.7% (61/176) of patients, were older (78.0±6.7 vs. 74.9±9.1 years, p=0.06) with lower rates of comorbidities. While DRT were detected significantly later in women (173±267 vs. 127±192 days, p=0.01), anticoagulation therapy was escalated similarly, mainly with initiation of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC), vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or heparin. DRT resolution was achieved in 67.5% (27/40) of women and in 75.0% (54/72) of men (p=0.40). In the remaining cases, an intensification/switch of anticoagulation was conducted in 50% (9/18) of men and in 41.7% (5/12) of women. Final resolution was achieved in 72.5% (29/40) cases in women, and in 81.9% (59/72) cases in men (p=0.24). Women were followed-up for a similar time as men (779±520 vs. 908±687 days, p=0.51). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no difference in mortality rates in women (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 1.73, 95%-Confidence interval [95%-CI]: 0.68-4.37, p=0.25) and no differences in stroke (HR: 0.83, 95%-CI: 0.30-2.32, p=0.72) within two years after LAAC. Conclusion Evaluation of risk factors and outcome revealed no differences between men and women, with DRT in women being diagnosed significantly later. Women should be monitored closely to assess for DRT formation/resolution. Treatment strategies appear to be equally effective.

Introduction: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative to oral anticoagulant (OAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication to long-term OAC. Combined strategy with percutaneous LAAC at the same time of other cardiac structural or electrophysiological procedure has emerged as an alternative to staged strategy. Aim: To describe our experience of combined LAAC procedures using Watchman™ devices. Method: All patients with combined LAAC procedure using Watchman™ (WN) devices performed from 2016-2021 were included. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of periprocedural complications and adverse events during follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint included strokes, systemic embolisms, major bleeding, and cardiovascular death. Results: Since 2016, among the 157 patients who underwent LAAC using WN devices, 16 underwent a combined strategy: 6 TEMVR (37%), 6 typical atrial flutter ablation (37%), 2 LP implantation (13%) and 2 atrial fibrillation ablation (13%). The WN device was successfully implanted in 98% and 100% for single and combined LAAC respectively (p = 0.63). Median follow-up was 13 months (IQR 25/75 3/24) in the whole cohort. Device related complications occurred in 6 out of 141 patients (4%) who underwent single LAAC and in no (0/16) patient in the combined LAAC procedure (p=ns). The procedural related complications did not differ significantly between groups (5% vs 12%, respectively in the single and combined group, p=0.1). Conclusion: Combined procedure combining LAAC using the Watchman™ devices and one other structural or electrophysiological procedure is safe and effective. Larger series are needed to confirm these results.