Lariat or Watchman

[cariharta]

Lariat or Watchman?

Has anyone here had a Lariat Procedure or a Watchman Procedure? The anticoagulant I've been taking did not prevent a TIA and I am now advised to have either of the two procedures I mentioned above.

[Angie06]

Hi cariharta, I was put forward for a Watchman procedure last year and went ahead as I also am unable to take anticoagulants. The Watchman device was too large for my LAA so they fitted an Amplatzer amulet device instead in March this year and although the thought of the procedure was a bit nerve racking it all went well and so far no problems. Are you in the UK, if you're in US someone on here has had the Watchman in the States and could advise you.

Angie

[BobD Volunteer in reply to Angie06]

Irina has had the watchman. These devices are seldom approved on NHS here in UK except for extreme circumstances so if you are in UK then be honoured!

[walker66]

Hi cariharta, I had the Watchman device fitted in 2016 and I've personally had no problems with either the procedure or since with it. If you are in the UK the chances of you getting one are slim to none, as I had a letter off my consultant that fitted it a few months back now ( because I was on a research group for it) to say that there is going to be no more done in the UK due to all funding being stopped, so therefore no more need for the research group! I really hope they find some money soon, and carry on doing a few of these very worthwhile procedures, and that your name is at the top of the list! Wishing you all the best, Sharon

[barabas]

I have not personally, but a good friend had the Lariat procedure done by the same EP who did a couple ablations for me. I gather that the Lariat is the newer procedure with essentially "ties off" the portion of the heart where blood tends to pool/clot, as opposed to implanting a Watchman device to accomplish same purpose.

Friend participated in a study which our EP and others in US are doing, where for certain forms of Fib and/or Flutter, a Lariat procedure is performed first. Then an ablation is performed within a reasonably short term thereafter....believe within 3 months. The study is assessing, I believe, longer term success rates of that procedure vs. only an ablation. Believe study is ongoing, so no results yet.

Anyway, friend had Lariat procedure which went well, but did go into AFib not long after the procedure, and think was cardioverted. Had some continuing AFib episodes and didn't feel strong enough to proceed with ablation on the time frame wanted for the study...so technically now out of the study.

However, later did have the ablation when feeling stronger, and now is 6 months downstream from ablation with no issues. Still on normal meds post-ablation, but will be coming off those soon.

[mjames1]

Here's Dr. John Mandrola's quite negative take on Watchman.

medscape.com/viewarticle/87...

There is some even more recent data on Watchman that I believe suggests the procedure itself may cause clots thus requiring anti-coagulation which the procedure is supposed to eliminate.

I'm sure there are two sides to the story but I would make sure you are very well studied on both the pros and cons before having such a procedure. Unfortunately, you usually don't get all the cons from the person doing it, so you really need outside opinions and/or independent research.

Jim

[Ianc2]

Look up Dr John M. He has a somewhat negative view of this procedure and estimates the risk factors of this procedure for causing a stroke at 4% and that warfarin or similar will be essential to minimise clotting risks thereafter.

[Hidden]

I had the Watchman on Jan 15th, 2018. Went well; so far so good. Would do it or similar procedure again. Hated being on Coumadin or any drugs I can possible avoid. Feel better and have less anxiety now that I'm off anticoagulants. irina1975 (Atlanta USA)