CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Short-Term Oral Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy Following Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Closure Gut microbiota dysbiosis promotes age-related atrial fibrillation by lipopolysaccharide and glucose-induced activation of NLRP3-inflammasome The management of secondary mitral regurgitation in patients with heart failure: a joint position statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the ESC Prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions in cancer patients treated with oral anticancer drugs Drug-Drug Interactions of Common Cardiac Medications and Chemotherapeutic Agents Alcohol consumption, cardiac biomarkers, and risk of atrial fibrillation and adverse outcomes Cardio-Oncology Services: rationale, organization, and implementation: A report from the ESC Cardio-Oncology council Endoplasmic reticulum stress in doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity may be therapeutically targeted by natural and chemical compounds: A review Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis Comparing Bifurcation Techniques for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure

Original Research2020 Aug;13(8):e009039.

JOURNAL:Circ Cardiovasc Interv . Article Link

Short-Term Oral Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy Following Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Closure

L Asmarats, G O'Hara, J Champagne et al. Keywords: LAAC; OAC vs APT

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - The impact of antithrombotic therapy on coagulation system activation after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remains unknown. This study sought to compare changes in coagulation markers associated with short-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) versus antiplatelet therapy (APT) following LAAC.


METHODS - Prospective study including 78 atrial fibrillation patients undergoing LAAC with the Watchman device. F1+2 (prothrombin fragment 1+2) and TAT (thrombin-antithrombin III) were assessed immediately before the procedure, and at 7, 30, and 180 days after LAAC.


RESULTS - Forty-eight patients were discharged on APT (dual: 31, single: 17) and 30 on OAC (direct anticoagulants: 26, vitamin K antagonists: 4), with no differences in baseline-procedural characteristics between groups except for higher spontaneous echocardiography contrast in the OAC group. OAC significantly reduced coagulation activation within 7 days post-LAAC compared with APT (23% [95% CI, 5%41%] versus 82% [95% CI, 54%111%] increase for F1+2,P=0.007; 52% [95% CI, 15%89%] versus 183% [95% CI, 118%248%] increase for TAT,P=0.048), with all patients in both groups progressively returning to baseline values at 30 and 180 days. Spontaneous echocardiography contrast pre-LAAC was associated with an enhanced activation of the coagulation system post-LAAC (144 [48192] versus 52 [24111] nmol/L,P=0.062 for F1+2; 299 [254390] versus 78 [19240] ng/mL,P=0.002 for TAT). Device-related thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (6.4%), and all of them were receiving APT at the time of transesophageal echocardiography (10.2% versus 0% if OAC at the time of transesophageal echocardiography,P=0.151). Patients with device thrombosis exhibited a greater coagulation activation 7 days post-LAAC (P=0.038 andP=0.108 for F1+2 and TAT, respectively).


CONCLUSIONS - OAC (versus APT) was associated with a significant attenuation of coagulation system activation post-LAAC. Spontaneous echocardiography contrast pre-LAAC associated with enhanced coagulation activation post-LAAC, which in turn increased the risk of device thrombosis. These results highlight the urgent need for randomized trials comparing OAC versus APT post-LAAC.