Ricardo Kosturakis1, Matthew J Price2. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Scripps Clinic, 9898 Genesee Avenue, AMP-200, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Scripps Clinic, 9898 Genesee Avenue, AMP-200, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. price.matthew@scrippshealth.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia, is a major cause of stroke and systemic embolism, and is increasing in prevalence. Device closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) represents a non-pharmacologic approach to stroke prevention in AF patients. This review presents the rationale for LAA closure (LAAC), describes current transcatheter approaches to LAAC, and summarizes the current evidence for LAAC for stroke prevention, highlighting the main randomized trials and the most recent data available. RECENT FINDINGS: Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials demonstrates similar rates of all-cause stroke with transcatheter LAAC compared with vitamin K antagonist therapy and significantly less bleeding with LAAC after cessation of mandated post-procedure pharmacology. Recent prospective observational studies, including those evaluating outcomes after commercial approval in the USA, show significantly improved procedure safety compared with earlier experiences. LAAC appears to be an attractive alternative strategy for stroke prevention in AF patients, particularly in those who can take short-term oral anticoagulation (OAC), but are not optimal candidates for long-term OAC. Recent data suggests the procedure can be safely performed in patients with contraindications to OAC. Further, robust studies are needed to evaluate safety and efficacy in OAC-contraindicated patients, to compare outcomes with non-vitamin K antagonist OACs, and to explore the relative safety and efficacy of different LAAC devices.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia, is a major cause of stroke and systemic embolism, and is increasing in prevalence. Device closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) represents a non-pharmacologic approach to stroke prevention in AFpatients. This review presents the rationale for LAA closure (LAAC), describes current transcatheter approaches to LAAC, and summarizes the current evidence for LAAC for stroke prevention, highlighting the main randomized trials and the most recent data available. RECENT FINDINGS: Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials demonstrates similar rates of all-cause stroke with transcatheter LAAC compared with vitamin K antagonist therapy and significantly less bleeding with LAAC after cessation of mandated post-procedure pharmacology. Recent prospective observational studies, including those evaluating outcomes after commercial approval in the USA, show significantly improved procedure safety compared with earlier experiences. LAAC appears to be an attractive alternative strategy for stroke prevention in AFpatients, particularly in those who can take short-term oral anticoagulation (OAC), but are not optimal candidates for long-term OAC. Recent data suggests the procedure can be safely performed in patients with contraindications to OAC. Further, robust studies are needed to evaluate safety and efficacy in OAC-contraindicated patients, to compare outcomes with non-vitamin K antagonist OACs, and to explore the relative safety and efficacy of different LAAC devices.
Entities:
Keywords:
Atrial fibrillation; Left atrial appendage; Stroke prevention; Watchman
Authors: Craig T January; L Samuel Wann; Joseph S Alpert; Hugh Calkins; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Joseph C Cleveland; Jamie B Conti; Patrick T Ellinor; Michael D Ezekowitz; Michael E Field; Katherine T Murray; Ralph L Sacco; William G Stevenson; Patrick J Tchou; Cynthia M Tracy; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Gregory W Albers; Hans-Christoph Diener; Lars Frison; Margaretha Grind; Mark Nevinson; Stephen Partridge; Jonathan L Halperin; Jay Horrow; S Bertil Olsson; Palle Petersen; Alec Vahanian Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ulf Landmesser; Boris Schmidt; Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk; Simon Cheung Chi Lam; Jai-Wun Park; Giuseppe Tarantini; Ignacio Cruz-Gonzalez; Volker Geist; Paolo Della Bella; Antonio Colombo; Tobias Zeus; Heyder Omran; Christopher Piorkowski; Juha Lund; Claudio Tondo; David Hildick-Smith Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Rikke Sørensen; Morten L Hansen; Steen Z Abildstrom; Anders Hvelplund; Charlotte Andersson; Casper Jørgensen; Jan K Madsen; Peter R Hansen; Lars Køber; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Gunnar H Gislason Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-12-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert P Giugliano; Christian T Ruff; Eugene Braunwald; Sabina A Murphy; Stephen D Wiviott; Jonathan L Halperin; Albert L Waldo; Michael D Ezekowitz; Jeffrey I Weitz; Jindřich Špinar; Witold Ruzyllo; Mikhail Ruda; Yukihiro Koretsune; Joshua Betcher; Minggao Shi; Laura T Grip; Shirali P Patel; Indravadan Patel; James J Hanyok; Michele Mercuri; Elliott M Antman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: O De Backer; S Arnous; N Ihlemann; N Vejlstrup; E Jørgensen; S Pehrson; T D W Krieger; P Meier; L Søndergaard; O W Franzen Journal: Open Heart Date: 2014-06-06
Authors: Robert J Sommer; Ronald Lamport; David Melanson; Carol Devellian; Andy Levine; Christopher M Cain; Aaron V Kaplan; William A Gray Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.411