CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Percutaneous LAA Occlusion

Abstract

Recommended Article

Half-Dose Direct Oral Anticoagulation Versus Standard Antithrombotic Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Single direct oral anticoagulant therapy in stable patients with atrial fibrillation beyond 1 year after coronary stent implantation Management and outcomes of patients with left atrial appendage thrombus prior to percutaneous closure Does pulsed field ablation regress over time? A quantitative temporal analysis of pulmonary vein isolation Left Atrial Appendage Closure versus Non-Warfarin Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation: 4-Year Outcomes of PRAGUE-17 Stretch-induced sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium leak is causatively associated with atrial fibrillation in pressure-overloaded hearts Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion during Cardiac Surgery to Prevent Stroke Short-Term Oral Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy Following Transcatheter 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.