Net Clinical Benefit of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Pooled Analysis of the Randomized PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL Studies

Trends in percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion and 1-year mortality 2013-2021: A nationwide observational study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is increasingly used for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation and anticoagulant-related complications. Yet, real-life studies evaluating changes in patient characteristics and indications for LAAO remain scarce.

METHODS

To evaluate changes in patient characteristics and indications for LAAO defined as 2-year history of intracerebral bleeding, any ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (SE), any non-intracerebral bleeding, other indication, and 1-year mortality. All patients undergoing percutaneous LAAO in Denmark from 2013 to 2021 were stratified into the following year groups: 2013-2015, 2016-2018, and 2019-2021.

RESULTS

In total, 1465 patients underwent LAAO. Age remained stable (2013-2015: 74 years versus 2019-2021: 75 years). Patients' comorbidity burden declined, exemplified by CHA2DS2-VASc ≥4 and HAS-BLED ≥3 decreased from 56.7% and 63.7% in 2013-2015 to 40.3% and 45.8% in 2019-2021. Indications for LAAO changed over time with other indication comprising 44.7% in 2019-2021; up from 26.9% in 2013-2015. Conversely, fewer patients had an indication of any ischemic stroke/SE (2013-2015: 30.8% vs 2019-2021: 20.3%) or any non-intracerebral bleeding (2013-2015: 29.4% vs 2019-2021: 23.4%). 1-year mortality was 11.3% for any non-intracerebral bleeding and 6.2% for other indication.

CONCLUSION

The LAAO patient-profile has changed considerably. Age remained stable, while comorbidity burden decreased during the period 2013-2021. LAAO is increasingly used in patients with no clinical event history and mortality differs according to indication. Selection of patients to LAAO should be done carefully, and contemporary real-life studies investigating clinical practice could add important insights.

Initial results of transcatheter modification of left atrial appendage by obliteration with device in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: Real-world data from the TERMINATOR registry

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has increased for those who need alternative to long-term anticoagulation with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

From September 2019, after initiating WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific, Maple Grove, MN, USA) device implantation, we established Transcatheter Modification of Left Atrial Appendage by Obliteration with Device in Patients from the NVAF (TERMINATOR) registry. Utilizing 729 patients' data until January 2022, we analyzed percutaneous LAAC data regarding this real-world multicenter prospective registry. A total of 729 patients were enrolled. Average age was 74.9 years and 28.5 % were female. Paroxysmal AF was 37.9 % with average CHADS2 3.2, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.7, and HAS-BLED score of 3.4. WATCHMAN implantation was successful in 99.0 %. All-cause deaths were 3.2 %, and 1.2 % cardiovascular or unexplained deaths occurred during follow-up [median 222, interquartile range (IQR: 93-464) days]. Stroke occurred in 2.2 %, and the composite endpoint which included cardiovascular or unexplained death, stroke, and systemic embolism were counted as 3.4 % [median 221, (IQR: 93-464) days]. Major bleeding defined as BARC type 3 or 5 was seen in 3.7 %, and there was 8.6 % of all bleeding events in total [median 219, (IQR: 93-464) days].

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary data demonstrated percutaneous LAAC with WATCHMAN device might have a potential to reduce stroke and bleeding events for patients with NVAF. Further investigation is mandatory to confirm the long-term results of this strategy using this transcatheter local therapy instead of life-long systemic anticoagulation.

Assessment and Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Older Adults with Frailty

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major driver of morbidity and mortality among older adults with frailty. Moreover, frailty is highly prevalent in older adults with AF. Understanding and addressing the needs of frail older adults with AF is imperative to guide clinicians caring for older adults. In this review, we summarize current evidence to support the assessment and management of older adults with AF and frailty, incorporating numerous recent landmark trials and studies in the context of the 2023 US AF guideline.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific HRS, and the Latin American HRS.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society.

2024 European Heart Rhythm Association/Heart Rhythm Society/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

In the last three decades, ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become an evidence-based safe and efficacious treatment for managing the most common cardiac arrhythmia. In 2007, the first joint expert consensus document was issued, guiding healthcare professionals involved in catheter or surgical AF ablation. Mounting research evidence and technological advances have resulted in a rapidly changing landscape in the field of catheter and surgical AF ablation, thus stressing the need for regularly updated versions of this partnership which were issued in 2012 and 2017. Seven years after the last consensus, an updated document was considered necessary to define a contemporary framework for selection and management of patients considered for or undergoing catheter or surgical AF ablation. This consensus is a joint effort from collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, namely the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society .

Impact of intracardiac echocardiography versus transesophageal echocardiography guidance on left atrial appendage occlusion procedures: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly used during left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as an alternative to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of ICE versus TEE guidance during LAAO on procedural characteristics and acute outcomes, as well the presence of peri-device leaks and residual septal defects during follow-up.

METHODS

All studies comparing ICE-guided versus TEE-guided LAAO were identified. The primary outcomes were procedural efficacy and occurrence of procedure-related complications. Secondary outcomes included lab efficiency (defined as a reduction in in-room time), procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and presence of peri-device leaks and residual interatrial septal defects (IASD) during follow-up.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (n = 5637) were included. There were no differences in procedural success (98.3% vs. 97.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42-1.27, p = .27; I2  = 0%) or adverse events (4.5% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.81 95% CI 0.56-1.16, p = .25; I2  = 0%) between the ICE-guided and TEE-guided groups. ICE guidance reduced in in-room time (mean-weighted 28.6-min reduction in in-room time) without differences in procedural time or fluoroscopy time. There were no differences in peri-device leak (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.27, p = 0.64); however, an increased prevalence of residual IASD was observed with ICE-guided versus TEE-guided LAAO (46.3% vs. 34.2%; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.05-4.75, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

ICE guidance is associated with similar procedural efficacy and safety, but could result in improved lab efficiency (as established by a significant reduction in in-room time). No differences in the rate of periprocedural leaks were found. A higher prevalence of residual interatrial septal defects was observed with ICE guidance.

Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review appraising the methodological quality

BACKGROUND

The increasing global prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has led to a growing demand for stroke prevention strategies, resulting in higher healthcare costs. High-quality economic evaluations of stroke prevention strategies can play a crucial role in maximising efficient allocation of resources. In this systematic review, we assessed the methodological quality of such economic evaluations.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Econ Lit to identify model-based economic evaluations comparing the left atrial appendage closure procedure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulants published in English since 2000. Data on study characteristics, model-based details, and analyses were collected. The methodological quality was evaluated using the modified Economic Evaluations Bias (ECOBIAS) checklist. For each of the 22 biases listed in this checklist, studies were categorised into one of four groups: low risk, partial risk, high risk due to inadequate reporting, or high risk. To gauge the overall quality of each study, we computed a composite score by assigning + 2, 0, - 1 and - 2 to each risk category, respectively.

RESULTS

In our analysis of 12 studies, majority adopted a healthcare provider or payer perspective and employed Markov Models with the number of health states varying from 6 to 16. Cost-effectiveness results varied across studies. LAAC displayed a probability exceeding 50% of being the cost-effective option in six out of nine evaluations compared to warfarin, six out of eight evaluations when compared to dabigatran, in three out of five evaluations against apixaban, and in two out of three studies compared to rivaroxaban. The methodological quality scores for individual studies ranged from 10 to - 12 out of a possible 24. Most high-risk ratings were due to inadequate reporting, which was prevalent across various biases, including those related to data identification, baseline data, treatment effects, and data incorporation. Cost measurement omission bias and inefficient comparator bias were also common.

CONCLUSIONS

While most studies concluded LAAC to be the cost-effective strategy for stroke prevention in AF, shortcomings in methodological quality raise concerns about reliability and validity of results. Future evaluations, free of these shortcomings, can yield stronger policy evidence.

Efficacy of Left Atrial Appendage Closure and Oral Anticoagulation After Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) proved to be noninferior to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in nonablated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LAAC with those of OAC therapy in patients after AF ablation. This study included patients who underwent catheter ablation (CA) of AF between January 2016 and December 2020. The cohort was divided into CA + LAAC and CA + OAC, where propensity score matching was used to select controls, and each group contained 682 subjects. The enrolled patients' mean age was 70.34 ± 8.32 years, and 47.3% were female; their CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.48 ± 1.17. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. After a 3-year mean follow-up, the incidence of thromboembolic events was 1.25 and 1.10 and that of major bleeding events was 0.65 and 1.72 per 100 patient-years in the CA + LAAC, and CA + OAC groups, respectively. The rate of thromboembolisms and major adverse cardiovascular events was similar between the 2 groups (hazard ratio [HR] 1.162, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.665 to 2.030, p = 0.598, HR 0.711, 95% CI 0.502 to 1.005, p = 0.053); however, that of major bleeding and all-cause death was significantly reduced with LAAC (HR 0.401, 95% CI 0.216 to 0.746, p = 0.004, HR 0.528, 95% CI 0.281 to 0.989, p = 0.046). There was no significant difference in periprocedural complications (p >0.05) and the rate of AF recurrence (OAC vs LAAC: 39.44% vs 40.62%, p = 0.658). LAAC is a reasonable and safer alternative to OAC therapy in high-risk patients after AF ablation.

Nonprocedural bleeding after left atrial appendage closure versus direct oral anticoagulants: A subanalysis of the randomized PRAGUE-17 trial

INTRODUCTION

Observational studies have shown low bleeding rates in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated by left atrial appendage closure (LAAC); however, data from randomized studies are lacking. This study compared bleeding events among patients with AF treated by LAAC and nonvitamin K anticoagulants (NOAC).

METHODS

The Prague-17 trial was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial that compared LAAC to NOAC in high-risk AF patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of a cardioembolic event, cardiovascular death, and major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH).

RESULTS

The trial enrolled 402 patients (201 per arm), and the median follow-up was 3.5 (IQR 2.6-4.2) years. Bleeding occurred in 24 patients (29 events) and 32 patients (40 events) in the LAAC and NOAC groups, respectively. Six of the LAAC bleeding events were procedure/device-related. In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, LAAC was associated with similar rates of ISTH major or CRNMB (sHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.44-1.27, p = 0.28), but with a reduction in nonprocedural major or CRNMB (sHR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.97, p = 0.039). This reduction for nonprocedural bleeding with LAAC was mainly driven by a reduced rate of CRNMB (sHR for major bleeding 0.69, 95% CI 0.34-1.39, p = .30; sHR for CRNMB 0.43, 95% CI 0.18-1.03, p = 0.059). History of bleeding was a predictor of bleeding during follow-up. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common bleeding site in both groups.

CONCLUSION

During the 4-year follow-up, LAAC was associated with less nonprocedural bleeding. The reduction is mainly driven by a decrease in CRNMB.

Atrial fibrillation and stroke prevention: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is one pillar of the management of this common arrhythmia. Substantial advances in the epidemiology and associated pathophysiology underlying AF-related stroke and thrombo-embolism are evident. Furthermore, the introduction of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (also called direct oral anticoagulants) has clearly changed our approach to stroke prevention in AF, such that the default should be to offer oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention, unless the patient is at low risk. A strategy of early rhythm control is also beneficial in reducing strokes in selected patients with recent onset AF, when compared to rate control. Cardiovascular risk factor management, with optimization of comorbidities and attention to lifestyle factors, and the patient's psychological morbidity are also essential. Finally, in selected patients with absolute contraindications to long-term oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion or exclusion may be considered. The aim of this state-of-the-art review article is to provide an overview of the current status of AF-related stroke and prevention strategies. A holistic or integrated care approach to AF management is recommended to minimize the risk of stroke in patients with AF, based on the evidence-based Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway, as follows: A: Avoid stroke with Anticoagulation; B: Better patient-centred, symptom-directed decisions on rate or rhythm control; C: Cardiovascular risk factor and comorbidity optimization, including lifestyle changes.

Leap or lag: left atrial appendage closure and guidelines

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with life-threatening thromboembolism. Most emboli stem from thrombosis in the left atrial appendage (LAA). The current treatment of choice is oral anticoagulants (OACs), but a small proportion of patients cannot take OACs predominantly because of the so-called unacceptable bleeding risks. However, many who initially accept OACs subsequently stop therapy or reduce the OAC treatment to a potentially non-effective dose leaving them exposed to thromboembolic risk. A relatively simple alternative therapy involves the catheter-based insertion of a LAA closure (LAAC) device to prevent thromboembolism from the LAA. There is a considerable evidence base for this therapy consisting of clinical trials and observational data which suggests comparable therapeutic efficacy with a possible small excess of ischaemic strokes. Although LAAC has been very closely examined by regulators and approved for market release, guidelines from most professional societies give only weak recommendations for use of this device which may be the only known effective therapy available to some at-risk AF patients. Guidance materials from the same societies more enthusiastically endorse LAAC. Clinical practice is running well ahead of the guidelines because equipoise has been lost by physicians faced with patients for whom they have no other effective therapy. Guideline writers are correct in providing recommendations which are less strong for LAAC than for OACs, for those who are able and willing to take OAC treatment, but for those who are not, a stronger recommendation is needed. But, should the guidelines lag behind or leap ahead of the available evidence?

Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion discrepancy between randomised trials and clinical practice

In patients with atrial fibrillation and previous episodes of bleeding on oral anticoagulant treatment, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as an alternative way to decrease the risk of stroke.

The use of the procedure has been on the rise, and the news coverage has been dominated by an uncritical acceptance of the benefit of this procedure, which probably have contributed to the increasing number of procedures.

This commentary is a presentation and critical appraisal of the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure as stroke prophylaxis.

We illustrate that LAAO is supported by limited randomised data risk of serious complications, which we do not believe supports the current widespread use.

Prevalence and Impact of Atrial Fibrillation on Intra-Hospital Mortality in Patients Aged ≥75 Years

It is unclear whether the association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and intra-hospital mortality in patients aged 75 years and older is causal or not. This study aims (1) to describe the prevalence and clinical characteristics of AF in ≥75-year-old inpatients and (2) to study the association between AF and length of stay (LOS) and intra-hospital mortality. This retrospective cohort study includes consecutive patients aged ≥75 years admitted between January 2017 and December 2019 to a Belgian secondary hospital. Survival analysis was conducted on the whole dataset and a propensity score-matched dataset separately. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for the individual probability of having AF given a set of covariates. In 9,105 patients, 3,137 (34%) had a diagnosis of AF upon hospital admission. AF prevalence increased with age strata (from 29% to 38%), and Charlson Co-morbidity Index (from 28% to 57%). Intra-hospital mortality (20%) was higher in the AF group than in the AF-free group (25% vs 17%, p <0.001). The median LOS was 11 days and was shorter in those without AF (10 [4, 17] days) compared with those with AF (11 [5, 19], p <0.001). After PSM, AF was not associated with increased odds of LOS >10 days (odds ratio 1.08, confidence interval: 0.98 to 1.20, p = 0.13). The risk of intra-hospital death for patients with AF remained higher compared with those without AF (log-rank p = 0.0015 and hazard ratio 1.17; confidence interval: 1.04 to 1.32, p = 0.008). In conclusion, the prevalence of AF was high (34%) in inpatients aged ≥75 years and increased with age and co-morbidity burden. After PSM, patients with AF had a 17% higher risk of intra-hospital mortality than patients without AF.

Frailty in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage closure

BACKGROUND

Frailty is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in older adults. Whether frailty predicts adverse outcomes after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the association between frailty and clinical outcomes after percutaneous LAAC.

METHODS

We identified patients 65 years and older in Medicare fee-for-service claims who underwent LAAC between October 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. Patients were identified as frail on the basis of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), a validated frailty measure centered on health resource utilization, with the cohort stratified into low (<5), intermediate (5-15), and high (>15) risk groups.

RESULTS

Of the 21,787 patients who underwent LAAC, 10,740 (49.3%) were considered frail (HFRS >5), including 3441 (15.8%) in the high-risk group. The mortality rate (up to 1095 days) were 16.1% in the low-risk group, 26.7% in the intermediate-risk group, and 41.1% in the high-risk group (P < .001). After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, HFRS >15 (compared with HFRS <5) was associated with a higher risk of long hospital stay (odds ratio [OR] 8.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.94-11.57), 30-day readmission (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.58-2.05), 30-day mortality (OR 5.68, 95% CI 3.40-9.40), and 1-year mortality (OR 2.83, 95% CI 2.39-3.35). In restricted cubic spline models, the adjusted OR for all outcomes monotonically increased with increasing HFRS.

CONCLUSION

Frailty is common in patients undergoing LAAC and is associated with increased risks of long hospital stay, readmissions, and short-term mortality.

Stroke Prevention After Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Where Are We Now?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are at high risk of both ischemic stroke and recurrent ICH, and stroke prevention after ICH is important to improve the long-term outcomes in this patient population. The objective of this article is to review the current guidelines on stroke prevention measures after ICH as well as the new findings and controversies for future guidance.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intensive blood pressure reduction might benefit ICH survivors significantly. Cholesterol levels and the risk of ICH have an inverse relationship, but statin therapy after ICH might be still beneficial. Anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation after ICH specifically with novel oral anticoagulants may be associated with better long-term outcomes. Left atrial appendage occlusion may be an alternative for stroke prevention in ICH survivors with atrial fibrillation for whom long-term anticoagulation therapy is contraindicated. While complete individualized risk assessment is imperative to prevent stroke after ICH, future research is required to address current controversies and knowledge gap in this topic.

The Watchman device for preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation

ABSTRACT

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common sustained dysrhythmias that increases in prevalence with age, and is associated with strokes that can lead to significant patient morbidity and mortality. AF prevalence is projected to double over the next 25 years, demonstrating the need for innovative and effective stroke prevention modalities. Two options are direct oral anticoagulants and left atrial appendage occlusion. This article discusses the Watchman device, a left atrial appendage occlusion device that provides an option for patients with contraindications for anticoagulation.

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.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulation versus left atrial appendage occlusion for primary and secondary stroke prevention after cardioembolic stroke

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the performance of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulation (NOAC) in patients with previous stroke and non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in primary and secondary stroke prevention settings.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center, non-randomized cohort study of 302 consecutive patients with non-valvular AF and at high risk for stroke. Two treatment strategies were compared: LAAO (n=91) and long-term treatment with NOAC (n=149). The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of death, stroke and major bleeding. Propensity score and cause-of-death analyses were performed to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

In a mean follow-up of 13 months, there were 30 deaths (LAAO 8.8% vs. NOAC 14.8%), five strokes (LAAO 1.1% vs. NOAC 2.7%) and six major bleeds (LAAO 1.1% vs. NOAC 3.4%). There was a non-significant trend for a lower incidence of the primary endpoint in the LAAO group (11.0% vs. 20.9%; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-1.05, p=0.064). Considering only secondary prevention LAAO patients (34.1% of the LAAO group), there was also a non-significant lower incidence of the primary endpoint (LAAO 6.5% vs. 20.9%; HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.07-1.39, p=0.12). While about a fifth of LAAO patients stopped antiplatelet treatment six months after device implantation due to recurrent minor bleeding, no adverse cardiovascular event or major bleeding occurred in this subset of patients.

CONCLUSION

In this registry-based study, LAAO was a reasonable alternative to NOAC for the prevention of a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke and major bleeding in patients at high risk for stroke.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulation versus left atrial appendage occlusion for primary and secondary stroke prevention after cardioembolic stroke

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the performance of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulation (NOAC) in patients with previous stroke and non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in primary and secondary stroke prevention settings.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center, non-randomized cohort study of 302 consecutive patients with non-valvular AF and at high risk for stroke. Two treatment strategies were compared: LAAO (n=91) and long-term treatment with NOAC (n=149). The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of death, stroke and major bleeding. Propensity score and cause-of-death analyses were performed to compare outcomes.

RESULTS

In a mean follow-up of 13 months, there were 30 deaths (LAAO 8.8% vs. NOAC 14.8%), five strokes (LAAO 1.1% vs. NOAC 2.7%) and six major bleeds (LAAO 1.1% vs. NOAC 3.4%). There was a non-significant trend for a lower incidence of the primary endpoint in the LAAO group (11.0% vs. 20.9%; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-1.05, p=0.064). Considering only secondary prevention LAAO patients (34.1% of the LAAO group), there was also a non-significant lower incidence of the primary endpoint (LAAO 6.5% vs. 20.9%; HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.07-1.39, p=0.12). While about a fifth of LAAO patients stopped antiplatelet treatment six months after device implantation due to recurrent minor bleeding, no adverse cardiovascular event or major bleeding occurred in this subset of patients.

CONCLUSION

In this registry-based study, LAAO was a reasonable alternative to NOAC for the prevention of a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke and major bleeding in patients at high risk for stroke.

Net Clinical Benefit of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Pooled Analysis of the Randomized PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL Studies

Background

The PROTECT‐AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) trials demonstrated noninferiority of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) to warfarin for the composite end point of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular death. This study aims to quantify the net clinical benefit (NCB) of LAAC versus warfarin, accounting for differences in clinical impact of different event types.

Methods and Results

We performed a post hoc analysis of the PROTECT‐AF and PREVAIL trials, which randomized atrial fibrillation patients to LAAC or warfarin in a 2:1 fashion. The trials enrolled patients in the United States and Europe between 2005 and 2012 with paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent atrial fibrillation and CHADS₂ risk scores ≥1. Relative to an index weight for death (1.0), events were assigned weights based on their disabling effect: (1) stroke event weights were based on modified Rankin scores in the base case analyses, and (2) major bleed (0.05) and pericardial effusion (0.05). NCB was calculated as the sum of weight‐adjusted events per 100 patient‐years. Among 1114 randomized subjects, the NCB of LAAC was 1.42% per year (95% CI 0.01–2.82, P=0.04) and a relative risk of 0.74 (95% CI 0.56–1.00). NCB point estimates favored warfarin early in follow‐up, but trended in favor of LAAC after 1 to 2 years. The benefit of LAAC was preserved across subgroups, with particular benefit observed in the subgroup of prior stroke and without diabetes mellitus.

Conclusions

This analysis demonstrates long‐term NCB of LAAC with Watchman over warfarin therapy, as the upfront risk of periprocedural events is counterbalanced over time by reduced bleeding events and mortality.

Clinical Trial Registration

UR: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01182441 and NCT00129545.