Key result
Routine LAA exclusion during heart surgery lacks sufficient evidence for stroke prevention.
Why the study?
Does left atrial appendage amputation during routine cardiac surgery reduce future atrial fibrillation and stroke?
Does left atrial appendage amputation during routine cardiac surgery reduce future atrial fibrillation and stroke?
Current evidence is insufficient to routinely recommend left atrial appendage exclusion during heart surgery to prevent stroke and atrial fibrillation, highlighting the need for randomized controlled trials.
Does not support routine LAA exclusion in cardiac surgery; leaves open optimal methods pending dedicated RCTs.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Stroke is the most feared complication of atrial fibrillation. To prevent stroke, left atrial appendage exclusion has been targeted, as it is the prevalent site for formation of heart thrombi during atrial fibrillation. We review the historic development of methods for exclusion of the left atrial appendage and the evidence to support its amputation during routine cardiac surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence is not yet sufficient to routinely recommend left atrial exclusion during heart surgery, despite a high prevalence of postoperative atrial fibrillation. Observational studies indicate that electrical isolation of scarring from clip or suture techniques reduces the arrhythmogenic substrate. Randomized studies comparing different methods of closure of the left atrial appendage before amputation do not exist. Such studies are therefore warranted, as well as studies that can elucidate whether amputation is superior to leaving the left atrial appendage stump. Potentially, thrombogenic remaining pouch after closure should be addressed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Domínguez et al. (2018) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation and stroke. Left atrial appendage amputation was evaluated. Routine left atrial appendage exclusion during heart surgery lacks sufficient evidence to be recommended for stroke prevention, highlighting the need for randomized trials comparing closure methods.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: