Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk1, Kasper Korsholm2, Dorte Damgaard3, Jan Brink Valentin4, Hans-Christoph Diener5, Alan John Camm6, Soren Paaske Johnsen4. 1. Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: je.nielsen.kudsk@gmail.com. 2. Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. Department of Neurology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 4. Danish Center for Clinical Health Services Research, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 5. Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Medical Faculty of the University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 6. Cardiology Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Institute, St. Georgés University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate clinical outcomes associated with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with high-risk atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: LAAO has been shown to be noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in AF. However, anticoagulation with DOACs is now preferred over warfarin as thromboprophylaxis in AF. METHODS: Patients with AF enrolled in the Amulet Observational Registry (n = 1,088) who had successful LAAO with the Amplatzer Amulet device (n = 1,078) were compared with a propensity score-matched control cohort of incident AF patients (n = 1,184) treated by DOACs identified from Danish national patient registries. Propensity score matching was based on the covariates of the CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category) and HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal or liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs or alcohol) scores for predicting stroke and bleeding. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥3), or all-cause mortality, and follow-up was 2 years. RESULTS: AF patients treated with LAAO had a significantly lower risk of the primary composite outcome as compared with patients treated with DOACs (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49 to 0.67). Total events and event rates per 100 patient-years were (LAAO vs. DOACs) 256 vs. 461 and 14.5 vs. 25.7, respectively. The risk of ischemic stroke was comparable between groups (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.75), while risk of major bleeding (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.79) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.64) were significantly lower in patients treated with LAAO. CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk AF patients, LAAO in comparison with DOACs may have similar stroke prevention efficacy but lower risk of major bleeding and mortality.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate clinical outcomes associated with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) versus direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with high-risk atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND:LAAO has been shown to be noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in AF. However, anticoagulation with DOACs is now preferred over warfarin as thromboprophylaxis in AF. METHODS:Patients with AF enrolled in the Amulet Observational Registry (n = 1,088) who had successful LAAO with the Amplatzer Amulet device (n = 1,078) were compared with a propensity score-matched control cohort of incident AFpatients (n = 1,184) treated by DOACs identified from Danish national patient registries. Propensity score matching was based on the covariates of the CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category) and HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal or liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs or alcohol) scores for predicting stroke and bleeding. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥3), or all-cause mortality, and follow-up was 2 years. RESULTS:AFpatients treated with LAAO had a significantly lower risk of the primary composite outcome as compared with patients treated with DOACs (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49 to 0.67). Total events and event rates per 100 patient-years were (LAAO vs. DOACs) 256 vs. 461 and 14.5 vs. 25.7, respectively. The risk of ischemic stroke was comparable between groups (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.75), while risk of major bleeding (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.79) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.64) were significantly lower in patients treated with LAAO. CONCLUSIONS: Among high-risk AFpatients, LAAO in comparison with DOACs may have similar stroke prevention efficacy but lower risk of major bleeding and mortality.
Authors: Wern Yew Ding; José Miguel Rivera-Caravaca; Elnara Fazio-Eynullayeva; Paula Underhill; Dhiraj Gupta; Francisco Marín; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 6.138