Clinical Outcomes Associated With Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation

Iatrogenic atrial septal defects after transseptal puncture for percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion and their hemodynamic effects

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) requires puncture of the interatrial septum. The immediate hemodynamic effects of iatrogenic atrial septal defects (iASD) after LAAO have not been examined so far. We aimed at evaluating these effects through invasive measurements of pressure and oxygen saturation. Moreover, we assessed the incidence of persistent iASD at three months.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients scheduled for percutaneous LAAO were prospectively included in the study. Pressure and oxygen saturation were measured (1) in the right atrium (RA) before transseptal puncture, (2) in the left atrium (LA) through the transseptal sheath after transseptal puncture, (3) in the LA after removal of introducer sheath, and (4) in the RA after removal of introducer sheath. Transesophageal echocardiography was performed at three months to detect iASD.

RESULTS

Pressure in the RA increased significantly after removing the introducer sheath (P = 0.034), whereas no difference was found in oxygen saturation in the RA (P = 0.623). Pressure measurement in the LA showed no significant difference after removing the introducer sheath (P = 0.718). Oxygen saturation in the LA also showed no significant difference (P = 0.129). Follow-up transesophageal echocardiogram at 3 months revealed a persistent iASD in 4 patients (8.5 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that iASD after percutaneous LAAO does not result in significant shunts directly after the procedure, although a significant increase of mean right atrial pressure can be observed. Persistent iASDs after percutaneous LAAO seem to be relatively rare at three months.

Clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage occlusion versus direct oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation and prior ischemic stroke: A propensity-score matched study

BACKGROUND

This propensity-score matched study investigated clinical outcomes associated with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) versus direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) in patients with AF and prior ischemic stroke.

METHODS

AF patients enrolled in the Amulet Observational Study with a history of ischemic stroke and successful LAAO (n = 299) were compared with a propensity-score matched cohort of incident AF patients with prior ischemic stroke and treated by DOAC (n = 301). The control cohort was identified through the Danish National Patient Registries. Propensity score matching was based on covariates of the CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, with a 1:2 ratio and using Greedy 5:1 digit matching with replacement. The analysis included 2-years follow-up, with a primary composite outcome of ischemic stroke, major bleeding (BARC ≥ 3) or all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores were 5.26 (1.42) and 5.40 (1.31) and HAS-BLED scores were 3.95 (0.91) and 4.03 (0.96), for the LAAO and DOAC group, respectively. Total number of primary composite outcome events were 61 (12.4 events/100 patient-years) and 117 (26.9 events/100 patient-years) in the LAAO and DOAC group, respectively. Risk of the primary composite outcome was significantly lower in the LAAO group, hazard rate ratio [HR] 0.48 (95% CI: 0.35-0.65). Ischemic stroke risk was comparable, HR 0.71 (95% CI: 0.34-1.45), while risk of major bleeding, HR 0.41 (95% CI: 0.25-0.67), and all-cause mortality, HR 0.48 (95% CI: 0.32-0.71), were significantly lower with LAAO. Cardiovascular mortality did not differ statistically between the LAAO and DOAC group, HR 0.75 (95% CI: 0.39-1.42). Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

This study indicated significantly lower risk of the composite outcome of stroke, major bleeding and all-cause mortality with LAAO therapy compared to DOAC, in patients with AF and prior stroke. The stroke prevention effectiveness appeared similar, with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding events with LAAO. The suggested clinical benefit of LAAO over DOAC require confirmation in the ongoing randomized OCCLUSION-AF trial.

Percutaneous Treatment Approaches in Atrial Fibrillation: Current Landscape and Future Perspectives

Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia in clinical practice, represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality, with an increasing prevalence. Pharmacologic treatment remains the cornerstone of its management through rhythm and rate control, as well as the prevention of thromboembolism with the use of oral anticoagulants. Recent progress in percutaneous interventional approaches have provided additional options in the therapeutic arsenal, however. The use of the different catheter ablation techniques can now lead to long arrhythmia-free intervals and significantly lower AF burden, thus reducing the rate of its complications. Particularly encouraging evidence is now available for patients with persistent AF or concomitant heart failure, situations in which catheter ablation could even be a first-line option. In the field of stroke prevention, targeting the left atrial appendage with percutaneous device implantation may reduce the risk of thromboembolism to lower rates than that predicted with conventional ischemic risk scores. Left atrial appendage occlusion through the approved Watchman or Amplatzer devices is a well-established, efficacious, and safe method, especially in high-ischemic and bleeding risk patients with contraindications for oral anticoagulation.

Efficacy and safety of various antithrombotic regimens after left atrial appendage occlusion

Aim. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of various antithrombotic regimens after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in real clinical practice.

Material and methods. This prospective observational study included 90 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and a high risk of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism who underwent endovascular LAAO using the Watchman device. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, major and clinically relevant bleeding according to the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD) criteria, and all-cause mortality.

Results. Patients were divided into subgroups depending on the antithrombotic therapy carried out after LAAO: 1) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) ± antiplatelet agents; 2) warfarin ± antiplatelet agents; 3) dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin + clopidogrel). Multivariate analysis showed a trend toward a lower incidence of the primary endpoint in the DOAC group compared with both warfarin (hazard ratio, 8,49; 95% confidence interval: 2,0-36,15; p=0,004) and antiplatelet agents (hazard ratio, 4,34; 95% confidence interval: 1,08-17,36; p=0,038). At the same time, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of primary endpoint between the warfarin and antiplatelet groups. There was no relationship between device-related thrombosis and postoperative antithrombotic regimen.

Conclusion. Endovascular LAAO is an effective and safe alternative to anticoagulant therapy. The present real-world evidence study revealed that the administration of DOACs after LAAO is associated with a greater efficacy and safety profile compared to warfarin and dual antiplatelet therapy.

 

Comparative analysis of left atrial appendage closure efficacy and outcomes by CHA2DS2-VASc score group in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Background

Higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc score is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), regardless of oral anticoagulation (OAC) status. However, whether this association still exists in patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is unknown. We evaluated the impact of CHA₂DS₂-VASc score on LAAC efficacy and outcomes.

Methods

A total of 401 consecutive patients undergoing LAAC were included and divided into 3 groups based on CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (0–2, 3–4, and ≥5). Baseline characteristics, periprocedural complications, and long-term outcomes were collected and compared across all groups.

Results

There were no significant differences in implantation success, periprocedural complications, and long-term outcomes across all score groups. Kaplan-Meier estimation showed that the cumulative ratio of freedom from all-cause mortality (P = 0.146), cardiovascular mortality (P = 0.519), and non-cardiovascular mortality (P = 0.168) did not differ significantly by CHA₂DS₂-VASc score group. LAAC decreased the risks of thromboembolism and major bleeding, resulting in a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 82.4% (P < 0.001) and 66.7% (P < 0.001) compared with expected risks in the overall cohort, respectively. Subgroup analysis indicated that observed risks of thromboembolism and major bleeding were significantly lower than the expected risks in score 3–4 and score ≥5 groups, respectively. The level of RRR increased with CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (P < 0.001 for trend) for thromboembolism but not for major bleeding (P = 0.2729 for trend).

Conclusion

Patients with higher CHA₂DS₂-VASc score did not experience worse outcomes, which may be partly attributed to more benefits provided by LAAC intervention in such patients compared to those with a low score.

Temporal changes and clinical significance of peridevice leak following left atrial appendage occlusion with Amplatzer devices

BACKGROUND

The natural history of peridevice leak (PDL) following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is unknown. This study sought to investigate changes of PDL from 2 until 12 months after LAAO, using cardiac computed tomography (CT), and to assess the potential association between persistent PDL and clinical outcomes METHODS: Single-center observational study of Amplatzer LAAO implants between 2010 and 2017 (n = 206). Patients with 2 and 12 months cardiac CT were included in the study (n = 153). Images were blindly analyzed. PDL was characterized by frequency and size at the device disc, lobe, and left atrial appendage contrast patency. Patients were followed for the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, or all-cause death. Median follow up from LAAO was 3.1 (2.3-4.3) years.

RESULTS

Contrast patency was present in 101 (66%) and 72 (47%) (p < 0.001) at 2 and 12 months, respectively. PDL was identified at the disc in 103 (67%) patients at 2 months versus 93 (61%) at 12 months (p = 0.08), and at the lobe in 29 (19%) at both time points. PDL area at the disc did not change significantly over time, ∆ $\unicode{x02206}$ area: -8.95 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: -18.9; 1.01) p = 0.08. Permanent atrial fibrillation was independently associated with persistent PDL. Persistent versus no PDL was associated with a 62% worse clinical outcome, however not statistically significant, hazard ratio (HR): 1.62 (95% CI: 0.9-2.93), p = 0.11.

CONCLUSION

Persistent PDL was frequently observed following LAAO with Amplatzer devices. The PDL frequency and size appeared unchanged between 2 and 12 months. Persistent PDL was not significantly associated with worse clinical outcomes, yet this needs further delineation in future studies.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the LAA Covering Disc Occluders-Conceptually and in Practice

Endocardial left atrial appendage (LAA) occluders with a covering disc encompass a wide range of devices that share the common feature of a distal anchoring "body" and proximal covering "disc" design. This unique design feature has potential advantages in certain complex LAA anatomies and challenging clinical scenarios. The current review article summarizes the different features of established and novel devices, preprocedural imaging updates, intraprocedural technical considerations, and postprocedural follow-up issues specific to this category of LAA occluders.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion-A Choice or a Last Resort? How to Approach the Patient

Left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion is emerging as a viable alternative to oral anticoagulation in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation. However, there remains limited evidence for this approach, especially in certain subgroups, and therefore patient selection is an important aspect of treatment. Here, the authors present arguments for LAA occlusion as either a last resort versus patient choice by evaluating contemporary studies on this topic and discuss practical steps in the approach of patients who may be suitable for LAA occlusion. Overall, an individualized and multidisciplinary team approach should be adopted in patients who are being considered for LAA occlusion.

Current Therapeutic Approach to Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Congenital Hemophilia

Cardiovascular disease in hemophiliacs has an increasing prevalence due to the aging of this population. Hemophiliacs are perceived as having a high bleeding risk due to the coagulation factor VIII/IX deficiency, but it is currently acknowledged that they also have an important ischemic risk. The treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) is particularly challenging since it usually requires anticoagulant treatment. The CHA2DS2-VASc score is used to estimate the risk of stroke and peripheral embolism, and along with the severity of hemophilia, guide the therapeutic strategy. Our work provides the most complete, structured, and updated analysis of the current therapeutic approach of AF in hemophiliacs, emphasizing that there is a growing interest in therapeutic strategies that allow for short-term anticoagulant therapy. Catheter ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion have proven to be efficient and safe procedures in hemophiliacs, if appropriate replacement therapy can be provided.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure Yields Favorable Cardio- and Cerebrovascular Outcomes in Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation and Prior Stroke

Introduction: Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and previous stroke are at significantly higher risk of stroke recurrence. Data on the efficacy of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) on these patients is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences of LAAC efficacy on long-term cardio- and cerebrovascular outcomes in NVAF patients with vs. without prior stroke.

Methods: Three hundred and seventy consecutive NVAF patients who underwent LAAC were enrolled and divided into stroke and non-stroke groups based on history of previous stroke. Endpoints, such as thromboembolism, major bleeding, and mortality post-LAAC, were followed up among groups.

Results: Patients in the stroke group had higher mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores compared to the non-stroke group (5.1 vs. 3.6 and 4.1 vs. 3.4, both P < 0.001, respectively). Over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, there were no significant differences in incidence rates of thromboembolism, device-related thrombus (DRT), major bleeding, and combined efficacy endpoints between the two groups. In both stroke and non-stroke groups, LAAC decreased the risk of thromboembolism [relative risk reduction (RRR) 87.5%, P = 0.034, and 74.6%, P = 0.004, respectively] and major bleeding (RRR 68.8%, P = 0.034, and 68.6%, P = 0.007, respectively) compared with predicted risk. The RRR in thromboembolism was greater in patients with vs. without prior stroke (OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.20–5.12, P = 0.016). The incidence rates of all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular death were similar between the two groups, but the risks of cardiovascular death post-LAAC both before (1.4% vs. 8.1%, respectively, P = 0.038) and after adjustment for confounding factors (P = 0.048) were significantly decreased in the stroke group.

Conclusions: Patients with vs. without prior stroke did not exhibit a worse clinical prognosis after LAAC. LAAC may provide an increased benefit in cardio-cerebrovascular outcomes in patients with previous stroke compared to those without previous stroke. Further research is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of LAAC in this field.

Outcomes of left atrial appendage occlusion vs. non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

The effects of left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion compared to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remain unknown.

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the outcomes in patients with AF who received LAA occlusion vs. NOAC therapy.

METHODS

We utilised data from TriNetX which is a global federated health research network currently containing data for 88.5 million patients. ICD-10 codes were employed to identify AF patients treated with either LAA occlusion or NOAC between 1st December 2010 and 17th January 2019. Clinical outcomes of interest were analysed up to 2 years.

RESULTS

108,697 patients were included. Patients who underwent LAA occlusion were younger, more likely to be white Caucasian and male, had a greater incidence of comorbidities, and were less likely to be prescribed other cardiovascular medications. Using propensity score matching, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly lower among patients who received LAA occlusion compared to NOAC therapy [1.51% vs. 5.60%, RR 0.27 (95% CI 0.14-0.54)], but there were no statistical differences in the composite thrombotic or thromboembolic events [8.17% vs. 7.72%, RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.73-1.53)], ischaemic stroke or TIA [4.69% vs. 5.45%, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.54-1.38)], venous thromboembolism [1.66% vs. 1.51%, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.47-2.57)] and intracranial haemorrhage [1.51% vs. 1.51%, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.42-2.39)].

CONCLUSION

Overall, LAA occlusion might be a suitable alternative to NOAC therapy for stroke prevention in patients with AF.

The use of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in dialysis patients-A systematic review

Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are used for prevention of thromboembolic events, but their use in dialysis patients is debatable. This study investigated the available evidence for the use of NOACs in dialysis patients. Online databases were systematically searched for eligible studies including pharmacokinetic (PK) studies, cohort studies, and randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing NOAC with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or no anticoagulant treatment. Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of bias tool were used for quality assessment. Twenty studies were identified (nine PK studies, two RCTs, and nine cohort studies). Most of the studies investigated apixaban or rivaroxaban. In dialysis patients, less accumulation was reported with apixaban and rivaroxaban compared to dabigatran and edoxaban. PK studies indicate that high dose apixaban or rivaroxaban should be avoided. The two RCTs (rivaroxaban/apixaban vs. VKA) were small and underpowered regarding stroke and bleeding outcomes. Most cohort studies found apixaban superior to VKA, whereas comparison of rivaroxaban with VKA yielded conflicting results. Cohort studies comparing apixaban high dose (5 mg) with low dose (2.5 mg) twice daily suggest a lower risk of stroke with high dose but also a higher risk of bleeding with high dose. Apixaban versus no anticoagulation was compared in one cohort study and did not lower the risk of stroke compared with non-treated regardless of apixaban dosage. Widespread use of NOACs in dialysis patients is limited by adequately sized RCTs. Available evidence suggests a potential for use of apixaban and rivaroxaban in reduced dose.

Clinical benefit of left atrial appendage closure in octogenarians

OBJECTIVES

Whether left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in octogenarians yield similar net clinical benefit compared to younger patients, was the purpose of the present study.

METHODS

Two real-world LAAC registries, enrolling 744 consecutive Amplatzer and Watchman patients from 2009 to 2018, were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

All events are reported per 100 patient-years. Two hundred and sixty one octogenarians and 483 non-octogenarians with a mean follow-up of 1.7 ± 1.3 and 2.3 ± 1.6 years, and a total of 1,502 patient-years were included. Octogenarians had a higher risk for stroke (CHA₂DS₂-VASc score: 5.2 ± 1.2 vs. 4.3 ± 1.7, P < 0.0001) and bleeding (HAS-BLED score: 3.3 ± 0.8 vs. 3.1 ± 1.1, P = 0.001). The combined safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up was comparable (30/446, 6.7% vs. 47/1056, 4.4%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.98;P = 0.48) between the groups. The efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death occurred more often in octogenarians (61/446, 13.7% vs. 80/1056, 7.6%; HR = 7.0; 95% CI: 4.53-10.93;P < 0.0001). Overall, octogenarians had a lower net clinical benefit, i.e., the composite of all above mentioned hazards, from LAAC compared to younger patients (82/446, 18.4% vs. 116/1056, 11.0%; HR = 4.6; 95% CI: 3.11-7.0;P < 0.0001). Compared to the anticipated stroke rate, the observed rate decreased by 41% in octogenarians and 53% in non-octogenarians. The observed bleeding rate was reduced by 10% octogenarians and 41% non-octogenarians.

CONCLUSIONS

LAAC can be performed with similar safety in octogenarians as compared to younger patients. On the long-term, it both reduces stroke and bleeding events, although to a lesser extent than in non-octogenarians.

Left atrial appendage occlusion in haemophilia patients with atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE

Advanced targeted therapy has resulted in increasing life expectancy and incidence of age-related cardiovascular diseases like atrial fibrillation in patients with haemophilia. Oral anticoagulation constitutes a significant dilemma in this patient category as the risks of stroke and bleeding are difficult to balance. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in patients with haemophilia and atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

All patients with haemophilia treated with LAAO at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, were identified from a local prospective database comprising all consecutive LAAO procedures from 2010 up to November 2020. Based on review of the medical records, a retrospective descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Seven patients with haemophilia A and atrial fibrillation underwent LAAO after multidisciplinary conference. Peri-procedural coagulation management was guided by factor VIII activity and treated with repeated bolus administrations of recombinant factor VIII targeting an activity of 100%. The implantation was successful in all patients with only minor bleeding complications post-procedurally. Based on these experiences, a suggested regime has been formulated.

CONCLUSIONS

LAAO is feasible in haemophilia patients with concurrent atrial fibrillation. However, special care including intravenous substitution with coagulation factors must be given in the periprocedural management.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure versus Non-Warfarin Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation: 4-Year Outcomes of PRAGUE-17

BACKGROUND

The PRAGUE-17 trial demonstrated that left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) was non-inferior to non-warfarin oral anticoagulants (NOAC) for preventing major neurological, cardiovascular or bleeding events in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the pre-specified long-term (4-year) outcomes in PRAGUE-17.

METHODS

PRAGUE-17 was a randomized non-inferiority trial comparing percutaneous LAAC (Watchman or Amulet) with NOACs (95% apixaban) in non-valvular AF patients with a history of cardioembolism, clinically-relevant bleeding, or both CHA₂DS₂-VASc > 3 and HASBLED > 2. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardioembolic events (stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism), cardiovascular death, clinically-relevant bleeding, or procedure/device-related complications (LAAC group only). The primary analysis was modified intention-to-treat (mITT).

RESULTS

We randomized 402 AF patients (201 per group, age 73.3±7.0 years, 65.7% male, CHA₂DS₂-VASc 4.7+1.5, HASBLED 3.1+0.9). After 3.5 years median follow-up (1,354 patients-years), LAAC was non-inferior to NOAC for the primary endpoint by mITT (subdistribution hazard ratio[sHR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.56-1.18; p=0.27; p for non-inferiority=0.006). For the components of the composite endpoint, the corresponding sHRs (and 95% CIs) were 0.68 (0.39-1.20; p=0.19) for cardiovascular death, 1.14 (0.56-2.30; p=0.72) for all-stroke/TIA, 0.75 (0.44-1.27; p=0.28) for clinically-relevant bleeding, and 0.55 (0.31-0.97; p=0.039) for non-procedural clinically-relevant bleeding. The primary endpoint outcomes were similar in the per-protocol [sHR 0.80 (95% CI 0.54-1.18), p=0.25] and on-treatment [sHR 0.82 (95% CI 0.56-1.20), p=0.30] analyses.

CONCLUSION

In long-term follow-up of PRAGUE-17, LAAC remains non-inferior to NOACs for preventing major cardiovascular, neurological or bleeding events. Furthermore, non-procedural bleeding was significantly reduced with LAAC.

[Left atrial appendage closure : Current data and future developments]

Catheter-based left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is currently a potential treatment option for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation and high risk for stroke/embolism as well as high bleeding risk. Due to improvements in LAAC devices, advances in implantation techniques and growing experience of the interventional teams, the safety profile of LAAC has significantly improved in recent years. These developments have led to a currently comprehensive exploration of novel indications for LAAC, such as patients with atrial fibrillation and a low risk of hemorrhage, patients with atrial fibrillation after pulmonary vein ablation or patients after electrical isolation of the left atrial appendage. The treatment principle of closure of the left atrial appendage is supported by new data, which show the effectiveness of surgical closure of the left atrial appendage with respect to a reduction of the risk of stroke, at least partly in conjunction with oral anticoagulation during cardiological surgical interventions. Currently, the application in the clinical practice is reflected by a high degree of active studies. These randomized studies are testing the use of LAAC in new fields of application and together with the new developments in implantation techniques should define the optimal future use of the methods for the clinical practice. The current potential indications for the LAAC procedure, ongoing randomized clinical trials and advances in device development, implantation planning and technique as well as future developments in the field of LAAC treatment are summarized and discussed in this review article.

Comparison of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion versus Non-Vitamin-K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulation in High-Risk Atrial Fibrillation: An Update

Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is non-inferior to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in preventing thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation (AF). Non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) have an improved safety profile over VKAs; however, evidence regarding their effect on cardiovascular and neurological outcomes relative to LAAO is limited. Up-to-date randomized trials or propensity-score-matched data comparing LAAO vs. NOACs in high-risk patients with AF were pooled in our study. A total of 2849 AF patients (LAAO: 1368, NOACs: 1481, mean age: 75 ± 7.5 yrs, 63.5% male) were enrolled. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.3 ± 1.7, and the mean HAS-BLED score was 3.4 ± 1.2. The baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. In the LAAO group, the success rate of device implantation was 98.8%. During a mean follow-up of 2 years, as compared with NOACs, LAAO was associated with a significant reduction of ISTH major bleeding (p = 0.0002). There were no significant differences in terms of ischemic stroke (p = 0.61), ischemic stroke/thromboembolism (p = 0.63), ISTH major and clinically relevant minor bleeding (p = 0.73), cardiovascular death (p = 0.63), and all-cause mortality (p = 0.71). There was a trend toward reduction of combined major cardiovascular and neurological endpoints in the LAAO group (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.64-1.11, p = 0.12). In conclusion, for high-risk AF patients, LAAO is associated with a significant reduction of ISTH major bleeding without increased ischemic events, as compared to "contemporary NOACs". The present data show the superior role of LAAO over NOACs among high-risk AF patients in terms of reduction of major bleeding; however, more randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: Final report from the French left atrial appendage closure registry

OBJECTIVES

The French left atrial appendage (LAA) closure registry (FLAAC) aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of LAA closure in daily practice.

BACKGROUND

LAA closure has emerged as an alternative for preventing thromboembolic events (TE) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Clinical data in this field remains limited and few investigator-initiated, real-world registries have been reported.

METHODS

This nationwide, prospective study was performed in 36 French centers. The primary endpoint was the TE rate after successful LAA closure.

RESULTS

The FLAAC registry included 816 patients with a mean age of 75.5 ± 0.3 years, mean follow-up of 16.0 ± 0.3 months, high TE (CHA₂ DS₂ -VASc score: 4.6 ± 0.1) and bleeding risks (HAS-BLED score: 3.2 ± 0.05) and common contraindications to long-term anticoagulation (95.7%). Procedure or device-related serious adverse events occurred in 49 (6.0%) patients. The annual rate of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism was 3.3% (2.4-4.6). This suggests a relative 57% reduction compared to the risk of stroke in historical NVAF populations without antithrombotic therapy. By multivariate analysis, history of TE was the only factor associated with stroke/systemic embolism during follow-up (HR, 3.3 [1.58-6.89], p = 0.001). The annual mortality rate was 10.2% (8.4-12.3). Most of the deaths were due to comorbidities or underlying cardiovascular diseases and unrelated to the device or to TE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that LAA closure can be an option in patients with NVAF. Long-term follow-up mortality was high, mostly due to comorbidities and underlying cardiovascular diseases, highlighting the importance of multidisciplinary management after LAA closure.

REGISTRATION

NCT02252861.

Left atrial appendage closure versus oral anticoagulation in non-valvular atrial fibrillation; a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices are an alternative therapy in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulation (OAC). However, there are limited data about the clinical outcomes of LAAC devices compared to medical treatment.

METHODS

A comprehensive research for studies comparing LAAC devices and OAC for patients with NVAF was performed from inception to January 1, 2021. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effect model to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Five studies were eligible that included a total of 4778 patients with a median-weighted follow-up period was 2.6 years. Compared to OAC, the LAAC device arm was associated with a lower risk of the composite of stroke, systematic embolism, and cardiovascular death (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.51-1.00; p = 0.05). LAAC device arm was also associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (OR of 0.60, 95% CI 0.46-0.77; p < 0.0001), cardiovascular mortality (OR of 0.57, 95% CI 0.46-0.70; p < 0.00001), hemorrhagic stroke (OR of 0.19, 95% CI 0.07-0.50; p= 0.0006), all major bleeding (OR of 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.88; p = 0.007) and non-procedural major bleeding (OR of 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.65; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in all stroke, ischemic stroke, and systematic embolization between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed lower all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, hemorrhagic stroke, major bleeding, non-procedural major bleeding and the composite of stroke, systematic embolism, and cardiovascular death in the LAAC device arm when compared to OAC. However, the risk of all stroke, ischemic stroke, and systematic embolism were similar between the two arms.