Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with minimal antithrombotic treatment in patients at very high risk of bleeding events

Short-Term Antiplatelet Versus Anticoagulant Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare bleeding, thromboembolic, device-related thrombus (DRT), and all-cause mortality events between patients treated with short-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) and those treated with short-term antiplatelet therapy (APT) following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).

BACKGROUND

Short-term OAC is recommended for patients following LAAO. However, in practice many patients receive APT rather than OAC because of excessive bleeding risk. However, the safety and efficacy of APT compared with OAC have been debated.

METHODS

A search was conducted of databases for studies comparing OAC with APT following LAAO. The outcomes of interest were all-cause stroke, major bleeding, DRT, and all-cause mortality. Noncomparative studies were pooled into a single study to generate comparisons of the studies' outcomes. Effects measure were pooled using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

A total of 83 studies with 12,326 patients (APT, n = 7,900; OAC, n = 4,151) were included. Mean CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.1 ± 1.6 and 3.0 ± 1.3, respectively. There were no significance differences between the APT and OAC groups with regard to stroke (risk ratio [RR]: 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54 to 1.98; p = 0.91; I2 = 31%), major bleeding (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.84; p = 0.65; I2 = 53%), DRT (RR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.74 to 2.39; p = 0.33; I2 = 36%), and all-cause mortality (RR: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.40 to 4.09; p = 0.18; I2 = 36%). These findings persisted in multiple secondary analyses: 1) excluding studies that reported no events; 2) including comparative studies only; 3) excluding patients who were treated with single APT; and 4) removing one study at a time to assess the effect of each study on the overall effect size. There was also no difference in the studies' endpoints among patients who received different LAAO devices.

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis of observational data, there were no differences in the occurrence of stroke, major bleeding DRT, and all-cause mortality in patients treated with short-term OAC or APT following LAAO.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with prior intracranial bleeding and thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative treatment in atrial fibrillation patients with contraindication to oral anticoagulation. However, patient selection criteria for LAAC are debated.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome after LAAC in patients with prior intracranial bleeding and thromboembolism.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation and prior intracranial bleeding who underwent LAAC from February 2009 to August 2018 at the Turku University Hospital, Finland, were included in a prospective registry. Patients were followed through clinical visits and annual phone calls up to 5 years.

RESULTS

Overall 104 patients (mean age 73 ± 7 years; 30% women; CHA₂DS₂-VASc score 4.7 ± 1.4; HAS-BLED score 3.3 ± 0.9) with atrial fibrillation and prior intracranial bleeding underwent successful LAAC using mainly (n = 102) Amplatzer devices. Median time from intracranial bleeding to LAAC was 7 months, and median follow-up 3.6 years. Antithrombotic treatment was ≤6 months in 71 patients (68%), and 48 patients (46%) received aspirin or clopidogrel alone. The rates of thromboembolism and intracranial bleeding (per 100 patient-years) were 3.4 and 1.9, respectively. In 39 patients with previous thromboembolism, the rate of thromboembolism was 3.6 per 100 patient-years (95% confidence interval 1.5-7.0), yielding a 69% relative risk reduction with respect to predicted risk based on median CHA₂DS₂-VASc score. Overall, rates of thromboembolism and intracranial bleeding were broadly similar in patients with and those without prior thromboembolism.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous LAAC with minimized antithrombotic treatment was demonstrated to be a valid treatment option in high-risk patients with prior intracranial bleeding and thromboembolism.

Effectiveness of Only Aspirin or Clopidogrel Following Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) offers a feasible option for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but the optimal antithrombotic treatment strategy for patients with strict contraindications to oral anticoagulation (OAC) remains uncertain. We sought to evaluate short- and long-term outcome after percutaneous LAAC in these very patients discharged on single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) alone. All consenting AF patients who underwent LAAC from February 2009 to August 2018 in Turku University Hospital, Finland, were enrolled into a prospectively maintained registry. Only patients discharged on SAPT alone were considered for the present analysis. Patients were prospectively followed up to 5 years. The primary end points were thromboembolic event (stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism) and intracranial bleeding. Of the 165 LAAC patients, 81 patients (mean age 75 ± 7 years; 44% women; CHA₂DS₂-VASc 4.8 ± 1.4; HAS-BLED 3.2 ± 0.8) were discharged on SAPT only (77 with aspirin 100 mg) after successful LAAC using Amplatzer devices. The duration of SAPT was ≤6 months in 61 (75%) patients. The most common contraindication to OAC was previous intracranial bleeding in 48 (59%) patients. During a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, there were 6 thromboembolic events (2.7 of 100 patient-years; 73% lower-than-predicted rate of thromboembolism). Eight patients (3.6 of 100 patient-years) had a major bleeding event after discharge, and 4 patients had intracerebral bleeding (1.7 of 100 patient-years). At 6-month landmark analysis, freedom from thromboembolism and intracranial bleeding at 3-year follow-up was similar in those with discontinued and life-long SAPT (95.1% vs 88.9% and 97.6% vs 91.7%, respectively). In conclusion, long-term outcome is satisfactory after LAAC in selected AF patients with strict contraindications to OAC receiving short-term SAPT. However, adverse events are not infrequent during early postoperative months.

Left atrial appendage occlusion for prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

When anticoagulation for stroke prevention is contraindicated, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) may be performed. Studies of LAAO have been limited by their small size, disparate patient populations, and lack of control group. Our purpose was to perform a meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of LAAO in comparison with standard therapy for stroke prevention in nonvalvular AF.

METHODS

Due to the lack of a control group in studies of LAAO, data on stroke prevention from multiple large outcomes studies were used to produce a hypothetical control group based on clinical variables in the individual studies. Results were stratified according to LAAO device type.

RESULTS

We identified 16 studies with a total of 1759 patients receiving LAAO. Summary estimates demonstrate LAAO reduced risk of stroke in comparison with no therapy or aspirin therapy [relative risk (RR), 0.34; 95 % CI, 0.25-0.46] and in comparison with warfarin therapy (RR, 0.65; 95 % CI, 0.46-0.91). Summary estimates differed based on the study used to derive the hypothetical control group. Device deployment was unsuccessful in 6.1 % of patients, and overall complication rate was 7.1 %. Efficacy and safety were similar across LAAO device type although a majority of patients in the meta-analysis received a Watchman device.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that LAAO is a reasonable option for stroke prophylaxis in AF when anticoagulation is not an option, and the risk for stroke outweighs the risk of procedural complications. Data were limited with the use of most available devices. To better establish the risk and benefit of LAAO in comparison with standard therapy, more randomized controlled trials are necessary.