Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has become an established alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation, with expanding indications beyond those with absolute contraindications to anticoagulation. Alongside its broader adoption, device-related thrombus (DRT) has emerged as a clinically relevant complication that directly compromises the protective intent of LAAO. This comprehensive narrative review synthesizes contemporary evidence on the incidence, mechanisms, predictors, clinical impact, and management of DRT. DRT is a multifactorial phenomenon that carries an annual incidence ranging from 1.75% to almost 5%, resulting from the interplay between post-implant flow dynamics, device engineering, endothelialization processes, procedural factors, and patient-specific prothrombotic features. Accumulating data from observational registries links DRT to increased risks of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and mortality. Although evidence is growing, optimal management regimens for both the prevention and treatment of DRT remain undefined. Moreover, a lack of standardization also affects diagnosis and imaging surveillance, mainly performed by transesophageal echocardiography or cardiac computed tomography. By integrating mechanistic insights, clinical predictors, device-specific considerations, and therapeutic evidence, this review highlights current knowledge gaps and proposes practical considerations to inform individualized risk stratification, surveillance, and management of DRT in contemporary LAAO practice.

The human heart’s conduction system consists of specialized cardiomyocytes that generate and transmit electrical impulses, leading to the rhythmic and synchronized contraction of the atria and ventricles, which is crucial for the normal cardiac cycle. In conduction system pacing (CSP), pacing leads are placed in the His bundle region and the left bundle branch area to achieve physiological cardiac activation. This method offers a more natural alternative to the myocardial stimulation provided by conventional right ventricular pacing and biventricular pacing. In this review, we describe the implantation techniques for CSP and discuss the current recommendations for their use.

Background: Venous closure devices (VCDs) are being increasingly used after femoral venous access to facilitate recovery, but their comparative efficacy and safety versus manual compression or figure-of-eight suture remain uncertain. Because femoral venous access management is influenced by patient-related and procedural factors, VCDs may contribute to a more personalized postprocedural recovery strategy. Objective: Evaluation of the impact of VCDs on procedural recovery and vascular complications in patients undergoing cardiac procedures via femoral venous access. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL through to April 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VCDs with manual compression and/or figure-of-eight suture. Primary efficacy outcomes were time to hemostasis (TTH), time to ambulation (TTA), time to discharge (TTD), and time to discharge eligibility (TTDe). Safety outcomes were major and minor vascular complications. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2, and certainty of evidence assessed with GRADE. Random-effects models were used to pool standardized mean differences (SMDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Seven RCTs (n = 948) were included. VCDs use significantly reduced TTH (SMD: −1.00; 95% CI: −1.57 to −0.42) and TTA (SMD: −1.50; 95% CI: −2.42 to −0.58). TTD showed a non-significant trend favoring VCDs (SMD: −0.99; 95% CI: −2.13 to 0.15), while TTDe was consistently shorter with VCDs across three trials. Major vascular complications were rare and similar between groups (RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.09–1.89). Minor vascular complications were significantly reduced with VCDs (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22–0.79). Conclusions: In patients requiring femoral venous access for interventional cardiology procedures, VCDs improve time to hemostasis and ambulation and reduce minor vascular complications without increasing major events. These findings support VCDs as an effective and safe strategy for venous closure.