CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

经皮左心耳封堵

Abstract

Recommended Article

Initial Worldwide Experience With the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation 2015 ACC/HRS/SCAI Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Device Societal Overview 2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Bleeding in Patients on Oral Anticoagulants: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee Gut microbiota dysbiosis promotes age-related atrial fibrillation by lipopolysaccharide and glucose-induced activation of NLRP3-inflammasome Does pulsed field ablation regress over time? A quantitative temporal analysis of pulmonary vein isolation Detection of Device-Related Thrombosis Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion A Comparison Between Cardiac Computed Tomography and Transesophageal Echocardiography​: A Comparison Between Cardiac Computed Tomography and Transesophageal Echocardiography Alcohol consumption, cardiac biomarkers, and risk of atrial fibrillation and adverse outcomes Single direct oral anticoagulant therapy in stable patients with atrial fibrillation beyond 1 year after coronary stent implantation

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.