Key result
LAA exclusion shows no mortality benefit over preservation in AF patients undergoing rheumatic mitral surgery.
Why the study?
The impact of left atrial appendage exclusion on clinical outcomes in patients with AF undergoing rheumatic mitral surgery needed evaluation.
Does left atrial appendage exclusion reduce mortality and thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing rheumatic mitral valve surgery?
Cohort (n=1,226)
Does left atrial appendage exclusion reduce mortality and thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing rheumatic mitral valve surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 3.03% vs 2.77%
Left atrial appendage exclusion during rheumatic mitral valve surgery does not significantly reduce mortality or thromboembolism compared to preservation, particularly when combined with surgical AF ablation.
LAA exclusion should not yet alter practice in rheumatic mitral surgery with AF; leaves open thromboembolic effects in ablation subgroups.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of left atrial appendage exclusion on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing rheumatic mitral surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1226 consecutive patients with AF (54.5±11.6 years; 68.2% females) who underwent rheumatic mitral valve (MV) surgery from 1997 to 2016. The left atrial appendage was preserved in 836 (68.2%) and excluded in 390 (31.8%) patients. Surgical AF ablation was performed in 506 (60.5%) and 304 (77.9%) patients with preserved and excluded left atrial appendage, respectively. For baseline adjustment, propensity matching was used. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 63.4 months (IQRs, 20-111 months), there were no significant intergroup differences in the risks of mortality (2.77% vs 3.03%/patient-years) and thromboembolic events (0.91% vs 1.02%/patient-years). In the 258 pairs of propensity-score matched patients, death (2.77% vs 3.03%/patient-years) and thromboembolism (1.36% vs 0.82%/patient-years) outcomes were comparable for both groups. In a subgroup undergoing ablation (n=810), there were no significant differences in the adjusted risks of death (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.32) and thromboembolism (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.18 to 1.26). In a subgroup not undergoing ablation (n=416), however, left atrial appendage preservation tended to have higher adjusted risks for death (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.13) and thromboembolism (HR, 4.41; 95% CI, 0.97 to 20.1). CONCLUSIONS: Left atrial appendage preservation did not seem to have greater risks of adverse clinical events in patients with AF undergoing rheumatic MV surgery particularly when ablation procedure is combined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing rheumatic mitral valve surgery (n=1,226). Left atrial appendage exclusion vs. Left atrial appendage preservation was evaluated on Mortality. Left atrial appendage exclusion compared to preservation showed no significant difference in mortality (3.03% vs 2.77%/patient-years) in patients with AF undergoing rheumatic mitral surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: