CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

经皮左心耳封堵

Abstract

Recommended Article

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion during Cardiac Surgery to Prevent Stroke Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure Extracellular Vesicles From Epicardial Fat Facilitate Atrial Fibrillation Patent Foramen Ovale Attributable Cryptogenic Embolism With Thrombophilia Has Higher Risk for Recurrence and Responds to Closure Residual Shunt After Patent Foramen Ovale Closure and Long-Term Stroke Recurrence: A Prospective Cohort Study Frailty and Clinical Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Older Adults With Atrial Fibrillation: A Cohort Study Left Atrial Appendage Closure versus Non-Warfarin Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation: 4-Year Outcomes of PRAGUE-17 Management and outcomes of patients with left atrial appendage thrombus prior to percutaneous closure

Original ResearchAvailable online 5 November 2021

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Left Atrial Appendage Closure versus Non-Warfarin Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation: 4-Year Outcomes of PRAGUE-17

P Osmancik, D Herman,VY Reddy et al. Keywords: atrial fibrillation; oral anticoagulation; left atrial appendage closure; cardioembolism; non-vitamin k anticoagulant

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - The PRAGUE-17 trial demonstrated that left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) was non-inferior to non-warfarin oral anticoagulants (NOAC) for preventing major neurological, cardiovascular or bleeding events in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

 

OBJECTIVE - To assess the pre-specified long-term (4-year) outcomes in PRAGUE-17.

 

METHODS - PRAGUE-17 was a randomized non-inferiority trial comparing percutaneous LAAC (Watchman or Amulet) with NOACs (95% apixaban) in non-valvular AF patients with a history of cardioembolism, clinically-relevant bleeding, or both CHA2DS2-VASc > 3 and HASBLED > 2. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardioembolic events (stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism), cardiovascular death, clinically-relevant bleeding, or procedure/device-related complications (LAAC group only). The primary analysis was modified intention-to-treat (mITT).

 

RESULTS - We randomized 402 AF patients (201 per group, age 73.3±7.0 years, 65.7% male, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.7+1.5, HASBLED 3.1+0.9). After 3.5 years median follow-up (1,354 patients-years), LAAC was non-inferior to NOAC for the primary endpoint by mITT (subdistribution hazard ratio[sHR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.56-1.18; p=0.27; p for non-inferiority=0.006). For the components of the composite endpoint, the corresponding sHRs (and 95% CIs) were 0.68 (0.39-1.20; p=0.19) for cardiovascular death, 1.14 (0.56-2.30; p=0.72) for all-stroke/TIA, 0.75 (0.44-1.27; p=0.28) for clinically-relevant bleeding, and 0.55 (0.31-0.97; p=0.039) for non-procedural clinically-relevant bleeding. The primary endpoint outcomes were similar in the per-protocol [sHR 0.80 (95% CI 0.54-1.18), p=0.25] and on-treatment [sHR 0.82 (95% CI 0.56-1.20), p=0.30] analyses.

 

CONCLUSION - In long-term follow-up of PRAGUE-17, LAAC remains non-inferior to NOACs for preventing major cardiovascular, neurological or bleeding events. Furthermore, non-procedural bleeding was significantly reduced with LAAC.