We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Comment & Response |

The Lariat for Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Rehash of Known Literature or a True Analysis?

Mukta C. Srivastava, MD1; Vincent Y. See, MD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore
JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(11):1868-1869. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5399.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


To the Editor In their systematic review of the Lariat (SentreHeart Inc) left atrial appendage (LAA) ligation system, Chatterjee et al1 question the safety classification of the device, citing adverse events recorded in the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database.1

While true complication rates cannot be ascertained from the MAUDE database, more than 3000 Lariat devices have been implanted in the United States since FDA approval in 2008 (email communication with a SentreHeart Inc representative, July 22, 2015), providing some perspective for the magnitude of adverse events reported by Chatterjee et al. Furthermore, review of the MAUDE database for Lariat-related adverse events through June 2015 implicates operator error in 6 of 45 case reports (13%), including 3 LAA transections resulting from device withdrawal against resistance or before suture cutting, suggesting that inadequate operator training likely contributed to events. Surgery was required in another patient after Lariat ligation was attempted despite anatomical contraindications. This indicates that rigorous operator training protocols and improved patient selectivity would readily effect complication rates. Safety concerns of the WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific) device were addressed by implementing similar measures, accomplishing step-wise improvements in procedural safety, reflected in the PREVAIL trial of the WATCHMAN.2 The critique by Chatterjee et al of the FDA’s 510(k) process for Lariat approval relies heavily on their MAUDE database analysis. Interestingly, since FDA approval in March 2015, 5 WATCHMAN device embolizations and 3 procedural deaths have been recorded in the MAUDE database. Comparatively, in the randomized clinical PREVAIL trial of the WATCHMAN device, only 2 device embolizations and no procedural deaths were reported after 252 implants, reflecting that real-world use risks are not readily identified in clinical trials. Reviewing approximately 3000 510(k) applications annually, the FDA balances prompt integration of scientific innovations with ensuring safety of approved devices, recognizing that all off-label device uses cannot be contemplated within their framework.3 Nevertheless, system safeguards like the MAUDE database are an effective mechanism for continued device surveillance. Current MAUDE database information regarding Lariat events, however, appears inconclusive and inadequate to make new determinations regarding the device.


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





November 1, 2015
Hosakote Nagaraj, MD; David Wilber, MD; Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD
1Nebraska Heart Institute, Lincoln
2Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
3Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of Kansas Hospital, Kansas City
JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(11):1867-1868. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5386.
November 1, 2015
Saurav Chatterjee, MD; Jay Giri, MD, MPH
1Division of Cardiology, St Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, New York
2Cardiovascular Medicine Division, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia
JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(11):1869-1870. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5405.
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...