The left atrial appendage dangles off the left atrial chamber in the heart and has long been suspected of being a nidus for clot that can break off and cause a stroke. Patients diagnosed with an arrhythmia called atrial fibrillation have particularly sluggish flow noted in the left atrial appendage and imaging studies corroborate the presence of clots in the left atrial appendage. The treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation has always involved powerful blood thinners to prevent formation of clot. This presents a problem for patients who cannot be anticoagulated, usually because they have demonstrated a propensity for severe bleeding on blood thinners. In a prior age, there were no good options for these patients, and doctors and families were reduced to prayer to prevent strokes from occurring.
Thank you for sharing this information. My dad who is 79 has just had this device recommended and I am trying to help him make an informed decision. I looked at some of the info and data from Boston Scientific which did not put my mind at ease about the whole thing. Anyways thank you very much.
Great post. Data for Watchman is incredibly weak. The regulatory trials PROTECT and PREVAIL rank among the worst, yet most influential, trials I have ever reviewed in my life. It's a disagree IMO that the broader cardiology community has embraced the device to the extent it has without demand for better trial-level evidence.
Terrific, to the point post.
Thank you for sharing this information. My dad who is 79 has just had this device recommended and I am trying to help him make an informed decision. I looked at some of the info and data from Boston Scientific which did not put my mind at ease about the whole thing. Anyways thank you very much.
This was very interesting!
Great post. Data for Watchman is incredibly weak. The regulatory trials PROTECT and PREVAIL rank among the worst, yet most influential, trials I have ever reviewed in my life. It's a disagree IMO that the broader cardiology community has embraced the device to the extent it has without demand for better trial-level evidence.