Abstract 4119189: Imaging practices prior to cardioversion in patients presenting post percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion.

Background: Direct current cardioversion (DCCV) carries a risk for stroke in AF patients, for that reason there are guidelines for mitigating this risk in AF patients on oral anticoagulation (OAC). Meanwhile, no consensus on the best approach for cardioverting patients with an appendage occlusion device in situ. This led to a very wide variation in pre and post DCCV practices in these patients. Aims: We aim to explore different factors that might be associated with the variation seen in pre-DCCV imaging practices in patients presenting post- percutaneous LAAO. Methods: This was a multi-center retrospective cohort study of patients who received DCCV for AF or AFL during follow up after LAAO procedure within a single healthcare system from 2016-2024. Results: A total of 119 patients were included, there were more females 70 (59%), with more than half (64 (54%)) receiving a first-generation WATCHMAN™ 2.5, while the rest had WATCHMAN FLX™. Median age at presentation was 77 years (72,82), BMI of 31 kg/m 2 (26,37), average CHADSVASC score of 4.5 and HASBLED score of 3. A median duration of 10 months (3,21) between LAAO to presentation for DCCV . Forty-four (37%) patients had pre-DCCV imaging (imaging cohort). Number of males was significantly higher in the imaging cohort (24 (54.5%) vs 25 (33.3%), p=0.038), compared to those without imaging. There was a significant difference (p<0.001) between the two cohorts in the location (center) where DCCV was done. The site with the highest number of pre-DCCV imaging cases had an equal gender ratio of patients presenting for DCCV. Patients who received imaging presented earlier (11.2 months vs 15.8 months, p=0.068) compared to those without imaging, though the difference was not significant. Between the two groups, there was no significant difference in OAC (VKA-antagonist/DOAC) usage prior to presentation (8 (18.6%) vs 12 (16.4%), P=0.9). There was no significant difference in baseline CHADSVASC score, HASBLED score, age, LVEF. Higher percentage of patients were discharged on OAC post DCCV in the imaging arm (13 (30.2%) vs 14 (19.4%), p=0.27), but the difference was non-significant. No Device related thrombus nor significant PDL was detected on imaging. Conclusion: There was male preference in providing pre-DCCV imaging for ruling out DRT. Location of care was also associated with the variation in pre-DCCV protocols. Additional research is needed to understand other factors associated with variation seen in pre-DCCV practices.