Dataset Information

Short-Term Antiplatelet Versus Anticoagulant Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare bleeding, thromboembolic, device-related thrombus (DRT), and all-cause mortality events between patients treated with short-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) and those treated with short-term antiplatelet therapy (APT) following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).

Background

Short-term OAC is recommended for patients following LAAO. However, in practice many patients receive APT rather than OAC because of excessive bleeding risk. However, the safety and efficacy of APT compared with OAC have been debated.

Methods

A search was conducted of databases for studies comparing OAC with APT following LAAO. The outcomes of interest were all-cause stroke, major bleeding, DRT, and all-cause mortality. Noncomparative studies were pooled into a single study to generate comparisons of the studies' outcomes. Effects measure were pooled using the random-effect model.

Results

A total of 83 studies with 12,326 patients (APT, n = 7,900; OAC, n = 4,151) were included. Mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.1 ± 1.6 and 3.0 ± 1.3, respectively. There were no significance differences between the APT and OAC groups with regard to stroke (risk ratio [RR]: 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54 to 1.98; p = 0.91; I² = 31%), major bleeding (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.84; p = 0.65; I² = 53%), DRT (RR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.74 to 2.39; p = 0.33; I² = 36%), and all-cause mortality (RR: 1.29; 95% CI: 0.40 to 4.09; p = 0.18; I² = 36%). These findings persisted in multiple secondary analyses: 1) excluding studies that reported no events; 2) including comparative studies only; 3) excluding patients who were treated with single APT; and 4) removing one study at a time to assess the effect of each study on the overall effect size. There was also no difference in the studies' endpoints among patients who received different LAAO devices.

Conclusions

In a meta-analysis of observational data, there were no differences in the occurrence of stroke, major bleeding DRT, and all-cause mortality in patients treated with short-term OAC or APT following LAAO.

SUBMITTER: Osman M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7988890 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLeft atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation has been evaluated in 2 randomized trials; post-approval clinical data are limited.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to describe the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) LAAO Registry and present patient, hospital, and physician characteristics and in-hospital adverse event rates for Watchman procedures in the United States during its first 3 years.MethodsThe authors describe the LAAO Registry structure and governance, the outcome adjudication processes, and the data quality and collection processes. They characterize the patient population, performing hospitals, and in-hospital adverse event rates.ResultsA total of 38,158 procedures from 495 hospitals performed by 1,318 physicians in the United States were included between January 2016 and December 2018. The mean patient age was 76.1 ± 8.1 years, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, 65 years of age and older, diabetes mellitus, previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, 65 to 74 years of age, female) score was 4.6 ± 1.5, and the mean HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly) score was 3.0 ± 1.1. The median annual number of LAAO procedures performed for hospitals was 30 (interquartile range: 18 to 44) and for physicians was 12 (interquartile range: 8 to 20). Procedures were canceled or aborted in 7% of cases; among cases in which a device was deployed, 98.1% were implanted with <5-mm leak. Major in-hospital adverse events occurred in 2.16% of patients; the most common complications were pericardial effusion requiring intervention (1.39%) and major bleeding (1.25%), whereas stroke (0.17%) and death (0.19%) were rare.ConclusionsThe LAAO Registry has enrolled >38,000 patients implanted with the device. Patients were generally older with more comorbidities than those enrolled in the pivotal trials; however, major in-hospital adverse event rates were lower than reported in those trials.

Project description:BackgroundComplex antithrombotic regimens are recommended for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation but carry high bleeding risk.HypothesisWe aimed to evaluate whether left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) improve clinical outcomes when compared with multiple antithrombotic therapy (MAT) in patients with AF undergoing DES implantation.MethodsAmong 475 AF patients who underwent DES, 41 patients treated by LAAO with DAPT and 434 patients on MAT were compared. MAT was defined as any combination of warfarin-based antithrombotic therapy. Among the MAT group, 34.8% were on triple antithrombotic therapy. The primary endpoint was a net adverse clinical event (NACE), a composite of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and major bleeding. Secondary endpoints were CVA, major bleeding, major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE), MI, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death. Additional analysis between the new oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-based antithrombotic therapy group (n = 45) and the LAAO group was performed for the same endpoints. To adjust the confounding factors, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied during the endpoint analysis.ResultsThe LAAO group showed higher incidences of diabetes mellitus, prior CVA, higher CHA2DS2-VASc score (4.56±1.55 vs. 2.96±1.60; P<0.0001), and higher HAS-BLED score (3.24±1.20 vs. 2.13±0.75; P<0.0001). NACE occurred less frequently in the LAAO group than the MAT group at 24 months (9.4% vs. 15.3%; hazard ratio 0.274; 95% confidence interval 0.136 - 0.553; P = 0.0003), mainly driven by the reduction in major bleeding (2.4% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio 0.119; 95% confidence interval 0.032 - 0.438; P = 0.001). The LAAO group with greater thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks showed comparable primary/secondary outcomes with the NOAC-based anti-thrombotic therapy group.ConclusionsAmong patients with AF who underwent DES implantation, the LAAO group had better net clinical outcomes for preventing CVA and major bleeding than the MAT group. Further large-scale trials including comparisons with NOACs are warranted.