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 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 Clinical Impact of Residual Leaks Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Insights From the NCDR LAAO Registry Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial An artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation during sinus rhythm: a retrospective analysis of outcome prediction Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: the Munich consensus document on definitions, endpoints, and data collection requirements for clinical studies EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – an update

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.