Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Patients With Anticoagulation Failure vs Anticoagulation Contraindication.
anticoagulation failure
atrial fibrillation
ischemic stroke
left atrial appendage occlusion
Journal
JACC. Cardiovascular interventions
ISSN: 1876-7605
Titre abrégé: JACC Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101467004
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 May 2024
08 May 2024
Historique:
received:
12
01
2024
revised:
28
03
2024
accepted:
02
04
2024
medline:
25
5
2024
pubmed:
25
5
2024
entrez:
25
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides mechanical cardioembolic protection for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who cannot use oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT). Patients with a thrombotic event despite OAT are at high risk for recurrence and may also benefit from LAAO. This study sought to investigate the efficacy of LAAO in AF patients with a thrombotic event on OAT compared to: 1) LAAO in AF patients with a contraindication for OAT; and 2) historical data. The international LAAO after stroke despite oral anticoagulation (STR-OAC LAAO) collaboration included patients who underwent LAAO because of thrombotic events on OAT. This cohort underwent propensity score matching and was compared to the EWOLUTION (Evaluating Real-Life Clinical Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Receiving the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology) registry, which represents patients who underwent LAAO because of OAT contraindications. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke. Event rates were compared between cohorts and with historical data without OAT, yielding relative risk reductions based on risk scores. Analysis of 438 matched pairs revealed no significant difference in the ischemic stroke rate between the STR-OAC LAAO and EWOLUTION cohorts (2.5% vs 1.9%; HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.72-2.61). STR-OAC LAAO patients exhibited a higher thromboembolic risk (HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.04-2.83) but lower bleeding risk (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.88) compared to EWOLUTION patients. The mortality rate was slightly higher in EWOLUTION (4.3% vs 6.9%; log-rank P = 0.028). Relative risk reductions for ischemic stroke were 70% and 78% in STR-OAC LAAO and EWOLUTION, respectively, compared to historical data without OAT. LAAO in patients with a thrombotic event on OAT demonstrated comparable stroke rates to the OAT contraindicated population in EWOLUTION. The thromboembolic event rate was higher and the bleeding rate lower, reflecting the intrinsically different risk profile of both populations. Until randomized trials are available, LAAO may be considered in patients with an ischemic event on OAT.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides mechanical cardioembolic protection for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who cannot use oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT). Patients with a thrombotic event despite OAT are at high risk for recurrence and may also benefit from LAAO.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
This study sought to investigate the efficacy of LAAO in AF patients with a thrombotic event on OAT compared to: 1) LAAO in AF patients with a contraindication for OAT; and 2) historical data.
METHODS
METHODS
The international LAAO after stroke despite oral anticoagulation (STR-OAC LAAO) collaboration included patients who underwent LAAO because of thrombotic events on OAT. This cohort underwent propensity score matching and was compared to the EWOLUTION (Evaluating Real-Life Clinical Outcomes in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Receiving the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology) registry, which represents patients who underwent LAAO because of OAT contraindications. The primary outcome was ischemic stroke. Event rates were compared between cohorts and with historical data without OAT, yielding relative risk reductions based on risk scores.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Analysis of 438 matched pairs revealed no significant difference in the ischemic stroke rate between the STR-OAC LAAO and EWOLUTION cohorts (2.5% vs 1.9%; HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.72-2.61). STR-OAC LAAO patients exhibited a higher thromboembolic risk (HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.04-2.83) but lower bleeding risk (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.88) compared to EWOLUTION patients. The mortality rate was slightly higher in EWOLUTION (4.3% vs 6.9%; log-rank P = 0.028). Relative risk reductions for ischemic stroke were 70% and 78% in STR-OAC LAAO and EWOLUTION, respectively, compared to historical data without OAT.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
LAAO in patients with a thrombotic event on OAT demonstrated comparable stroke rates to the OAT contraindicated population in EWOLUTION. The thromboembolic event rate was higher and the bleeding rate lower, reflecting the intrinsically different risk profile of both populations. Until randomized trials are available, LAAO may be considered in patients with an ischemic event on OAT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38795093
pii: S1936-8798(24)00648-4
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2024.04.012
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Maarse has received an educational grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Tondo serves on the Advisory Board of Boston Scientific; and has received lecture and tutoring fees from Boston Scientific and Abbott Medical. Dr Demkow has received proctoring fees from Boston Scientific and Abbott. Dr de Backer has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Nielsen-Kudsk has received grants from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Estevez-Loureiro is a proctor for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Lifetech. Dr de Prado is a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Nombela-Franco is a proctor for Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Salinas is a proctor for Abbott Vascular. Dr Berti is a proctor for Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr Millan has received consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific. Dr Arzamendi has received consultant fees/honoraria from Abbott Laboratories and Boston Scientific. Dr Agarwal is a member of the Speaker Bureau and proctor for Medtronics, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. Dr Spoon is a speaker for Medtronic, Abiomed, and Abbott. Dr El-Chami is a consultant for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Adamo has received speaker honoraria from Abbott Structural Heart. Dr van Dijk has is a proctor for Boston Scientific. Dr Swaans is a proctor/lecturer for Abbott Vacular, Bioventrix Inc, Boston Scientific, Cardiac Dimensions, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, and Philips Healthcare. Dr Vireca is an employee of Boston Scientific. Dr Bergmann has received speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific and Abbott; and has received research support from Boston Scientific and Abbott. Dr Boersma is a consultant for Boston Scientific; and is a proctor for Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.