CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Percutaneous LAA Occlusion

Abstract

Recommended Article

Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure 2015 ACC/HRS/SCAI Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Device Societal Overview Clinical Impact of Residual Leaks Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Insights From the NCDR LAAO Registry Dabigatran dual therapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention in atrial fibrillation patients with or without acute coronary syndrome: a subgroup analysis from the RE-DUAL PCI trial Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: the Munich consensus document on definitions, endpoints, and data collection requirements for clinical studies Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – an update An artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation during sinus rhythm: a retrospective analysis of outcome prediction

Original Research2021 Nov 8;14(21):2353-2364.

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Half-Dose Direct Oral Anticoagulation Versus Standard Antithrombotic Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

DGD Rocca, M Magnocavallo, LD Biase et al. Keywords: Watchman; antiplatelet therapy; aspirin; left atrial appendage; oral anticoagulation; stroke; thromboembolism

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES -  This study evaluated the long-term efficacy of a standard antithrombotic strategy versus half-dose direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) after Watchman implantation.

 

BACKGROUND -  No consensus currently exists on the selection of the most effective antithrombotic strategy to prevent device-related thrombosis (DRT) in patients undergoing endocardial left atrial appendage closure.

 

METHODS -  After successful left atrial appendage closure, consecutive patients were prescribed a standard antithrombotic strategy (SAT) or long-term half-dose DOAC (hdDOAC). The primary composite endpoint was DRT and thromboembolic (TE) and bleeding events.

 

RESULTS -  Overall, 555 patients (mean age 75 ± 8 years, 63% male; median CHA2DS2-VASc [congestive heart failure, hypertension, age 75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category] score 4 [interquartile range (IQR): 3-6]; median HAS-BLED [hypertension, abnormal renal or liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs or alcohol] score 3 [IQR: 2-4]) were included. Patients were categorized into 2 groups (SAT: n = 357 vs hdDOAC: n = 198). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between groups. The median follow-up duration was 13 months (IQR: 12-15 months). DRT occurred in 12 (2.1%) patients, all in the SAT group (3.4% vs 0.0%; log-rank P = 0.009). The risk of nonprocedural major bleeding was significantly more favorable in the hdDOAC group (0.5% vs. 3.9%; log-rank P = 0.018). The rate of the primary composite endpoint of DRT and TE and major bleeding events was 9.5% in SAT patients and 1.0% in hdDOAC patients (HR: 9.8; 95% CI: 2.3-40.7; P = 0.002).

 

CONCLUSIONS -  After successful Watchman implantation, long-term half-dose DOAC significantly reduced the risk of the composite endpoint of DRT and TE and major bleeding events compared with a standard, antiplatelet-based, antithrombotic therapy.