Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jun 23;65(24):2614-2623. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.025.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure as an Alternative to Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

Author information

1
Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic address: holmes.david@mayo.edu.
2
St. John's Health Center, Santa Monica, California.
3
Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
4
Scripps Clinic, La Jolla, California.
5
Mercy Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri.
6
Cardiovascular Center Frankfurt, Sankt Katharinen, Frankfurt, Germany.
7
Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas.
8
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The risk-benefit ratio of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) versus systemic therapy (warfarin) for prevention of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) requires continued evaluation.

OBJECTIVES:

This study sought to assess composite data regarding left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in 2 randomized trials compared to warfarin for prevention of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death in patients with nonvalvular AF.

METHODS:

Our meta-analysis included 2,406 patients with 5,931 patient-years (PY) of follow-up from the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device In Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) trials, and their respective registries (Continued Access to PROTECT AF registry and Continued Access to PREVAIL registry).

RESULTS:

With mean follow-up of 2.69 years, patients receiving LAAC with the Watchman device had significantly fewer hemorrhagic strokes (0.15 vs. 0.96 events/100 patient-years [PY]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.22; p = 0.004), cardiovascular/unexplained death (1.1 vs. 2.3 events/100 PY; HR: 0.48; p = 0.006), and nonprocedural bleeding (6.0% vs. 11.3%; HR: 0.51; p = 0.006) compared with warfarin. All-cause stroke or systemic embolism was similar between both strategies (1.75 vs. 1.87 events/100 PY; HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.7; p = 0.94). There were more ischemic strokes in the device group (1.6 vs. 0.9 and 0.2 vs. 1.0 events/100 PY; HR: 1.95 and 0.22, respectively; p = 0.05 and 0.004, respectively). Both trials and registries identified similar event rates and consistent device effect in multiple subsets.

CONCLUSIONS:

In patients with NVAF at increased risk for stroke or bleeding who are candidates for chronic anticoagulation, LAAC resulted in improved rates of hemorrhagic stroke, cardiovascular/unexplained death, and nonprocedural bleeding compared to warfarin.

KEYWORDS:

appendage occlusion; long-term warfarin; stroke prevention; thromboembolism; warfarin alternative

PMID:
26088300
DOI:
10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.025
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center