Literature DB >> 24998121

Prospective randomized evaluation of the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial.

David R Holmes1, Saibal Kar2, Matthew J Price3, Brian Whisenant4, Horst Sievert5, Shephal K Doshi6, Kenneth Huber7, Vivek Y Reddy8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial that evaluated patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion was noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention, but a periprocedural safety hazard was identified.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of LAA occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF compared with long-term warfarin therapy.
METHODS: This randomized trial further assessed the efficacy and safety of the Watchman device. Patients with NVAF who had a CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age >75 years, diabetes mellitus, and previous stroke/transient ischemic attack) score ≥2 or 1 and another risk factor were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to undergo LAA occlusion and subsequent discontinuation of warfarin (intervention group, n = 269) or receive chronic warfarin therapy (control group, n = 138). Two efficacy and 1 safety coprimary endpoints were assessed.
RESULTS: At 18 months, the rate of the first coprimary efficacy endpoint (composite of stroke, systemic embolism [SE], and cardiovascular/unexplained death) was 0.064 in the device group versus 0.063 in the control group (rate ratio 1.07 [95% credible interval (CrI): 0.57 to 1.89]) and did not achieve the prespecified criteria noninferiority (upper boundary of 95% CrI ≥1.75). The rate for the second coprimary efficacy endpoint (stroke or SE >7 days' postrandomization) was 0.0253 versus 0.0200 (risk difference 0.0053 [95% CrI: -0.0190 to 0.0273]), achieving noninferiority. Early safety events occurred in 2.2% of the Watchman arm, significantly lower than in PROTECT AF, satisfying the pre-specified safety performance goal. Using a broader, more inclusive definition of adverse effects, these still were lower in PREVAIL (Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) trial than in PROTECT AF (4.2% vs. 8.7%; p = 0.004). Pericardial effusions requiring surgical repair decreased from 1.6% to 0.4% (p = 0.027), and those requiring pericardiocentesis decreased from 2.9% to 1.5% (p = 0.36), although the number of events was small.
CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, LAA occlusion was noninferior to warfarin for ischemic stroke prevention or SE >7 days' post-procedure. Although noninferiority was not achieved for overall efficacy, event rates were low and numerically comparable in both arms. Procedural safety has significantly improved. This trial provides additional data that LAA occlusion is a reasonable alternative to warfarin therapy for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF who do not have an absolute contraindication to short-term warfarin therapy.
Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  atrial fibrillation; left atrial appendage; stroke prevention

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24998121     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  278 in total

1.  [Atrial appendage occlusion in atrial fibrillation? Con].

Authors:  P D Schellinger; M Köhrmann
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 1.214

2.  Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in India: The beginning of a new era.

Authors:  Adel Aminian; Georges Khalil; Apostolos Tzikas
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2015-10-21

3.  The case of stroke prevention by left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillation-can we close the file?

Authors:  Yuri Blaauw; Michiel Rienstra
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Maze permutations during minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.

Authors:  Anson M Lee
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-09

Review 5.  An overview of left atrial appendage occlusion devices.

Authors:  Kyle J Feldmann; Arash Arshi; Steven J Yakubov
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 6.  Arrhythmias in Patients ≥80 Years of Age: Pathophysiology, Management, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Anne B Curtis; Roshan Karki; Alexander Hattoum; Umesh C Sharma
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  The Watchman saga--closure at last?

Authors:  Daniel B Kramer; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  [Stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation : When, how and for whom?]

Authors:  T Maurer; C Sohns
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 9.  Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.

Authors:  Erin A Fender; Jawad G Kiani; David R Holmes
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 5.113

10.  Left atrial appendage occlusion with the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ device: full results of the prospective global observational study.

Authors:  David Hildick-Smith; Ulf Landmesser; A John Camm; Hans-Christoph Diener; Vince Paul; Boris Schmidt; Magnus Settergren; Emmanuel Teiger; Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk; Claudio Tondo
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 29.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.