Literature DB >> 25399274

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial.

Vivek Y Reddy1, Horst Sievert2, Jonathan Halperin3, Shephal K Doshi4, Maurice Buchbinder5, Petr Neuzil6, Kenneth Huber7, Brian Whisenant8, Saibal Kar9, Vijay Swarup10, Nicole Gordon11, David Holmes12.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: While effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), warfarin is limited by a narrow therapeutic profile, a need for lifelong coagulation monitoring, and multiple drug and diet interactions.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a local strategy of mechanical left atrial appendage (LAA) closure was noninferior to warfarin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: PROTECT AF was a multicenter, randomized (2:1), unblinded, Bayesian-designed study conducted at 59 hospitals of 707 patients with nonvalvular AF and at least 1 additional stroke risk factor (CHADS2 score ≥1). Enrollment occurred between February 2005 and June 2008 and included 4-year follow-up through October 2012. Noninferiority required a posterior probability greater than 97.5% and superiority a probability of 95% or greater; the noninferiority margin was a rate ratio of 2.0 comparing event rates between treatment groups.
INTERVENTIONS: Left atrial appendage closure with the device (n = 463) or warfarin (n = 244; target international normalized ratio, 2-3). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A composite efficacy end point including stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death, analyzed by intention-to-treat.
RESULTS: At a mean (SD) follow-up of 3.8 (1.7) years (2621 patient-years), there were 39 events among 463 patients (8.4%) in the device group for a primary event rate of 2.3 events per 100 patient-years, compared with 34 events among 244 patients (13.9%) for a primary event rate of 3.8 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin (rate ratio, 0.60; 95% credible interval, 0.41-1.05), meeting prespecified criteria for both noninferiority (posterior probability, >99.9%) and superiority (posterior probability, 96.0%). Patients in the device group demonstrated lower rates of both cardiovascular mortality (1.0 events per 100 patient-years for the device group [17/463 patients, 3.7%] vs 2.4 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin [22/244 patients, 9.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.75; P = .005) and all-cause mortality (3.2 events per 100 patient-years for the device group [57/466 patients, 12.3%] vs 4.8 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin [44/244 patients, 18.0%]; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After 3.8 years of follow-up among patients with nonvalvular AF at elevated risk for stroke, percutaneous LAA closure met criteria for both noninferiority and superiority, compared with warfarin, for preventing the combined outcome of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death, as well as superiority for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00129545.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25399274     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.15192

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  167 in total

1.  [Extrabronchial effects of Bronchodilat in patients with asthma and chronic asthmatic bronchitis].

Authors:  J Rozniecki; W Grabski
Journal:  Gruzlica       Date:  1975-11

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

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

3.  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

Review 4.  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

5.  Efficacy and safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure to prevent thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation patients with high stroke and bleeding risk.

Authors:  Julia Seeger; Carlo Bothner; Tillman Dahme; Birgid Gonska; Dominik Scharnbeck; Sinisa Markovic; Wolfgang Rottbauer; Jochen Wöhrle
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2015-08-30       Impact factor: 5.460

6.  Five years of keeping a watch on the left atrial appendage-how has the WATCHMAN fared?

Authors:  Mohammad-Ali Jazayeri; Venkat Vuddanda; Valay Parikh; Madhav Lavu; Donita Atkins; Y Madhu Reddy; Jayant Nath; Dhanunjaya R Lakkireddy
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  Intracardiac echocardiography versus transesophageal echocardiography for left atrial appendage closure: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Aravdeep Jhand; Abhishek Thandra; Yeongjin Gwon; Mohit K Turagam; Mahi Ashwath; Pradeep Yadav; Fawaz Alenezi; Jalal Garg; J Dawn Abbott; Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy; Manish Parikh; Robert Sommer; Poonam Velagapudi
Journal:  Am J Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  2020-12-15

Review 8.  Cardioembolic Stroke.

Authors:  Hooman Kamel; Jeff S Healey
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 17.367

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

Review 10.  New approaches to managing nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: what are the thromboembolic implications?

Authors:  Peter J Kudenchuk
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.300

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.