CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Relationship Between Hospital Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes Adenosine and adenosine receptor-mediated action in coronary microcirculation Infective Endocarditis After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Differences between the left main and other bifurcations Decline in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction During Follow-Up in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Ascending Aortic Length and Risk of Aortic Adverse Events: The Neglected Dimension New-onset atrial fibrillation after PCI and CABG for left main disease: insights from the EXCEL trial and additional studies Comparative effectiveness analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with chronic kidney disease and unprotected left main coronary artery disease Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Active SB-P Versus Conventional Approach to the Protection of High-Risk Side Branches: The CIT-RESOLVE Trial

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.