Key result
LAAC in patients ≥75 years is linked to ~162% higher periprocedural mortality and major bleeding.
Why the study?
LAAC is an established therapy for AF, but there is limited understanding of its safety and outcomes in elderly patients (≥75 years old).
Does left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have higher procedural complication rates or different long-term outcomes in elderly (≥75 years) versus non-elderly patients with atrial fibrillation?
Meta-Analysis (n=61,129)
Does left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have higher procedural complication rates or different long-term outcomes in elderly (≥75 years) versus non-elderly patients with atrial fibrillation?
Effect estimate: OR 2.62 (95% CI 1.79-3.83)
p-value: p=< 0.01
While LAAC is equally successful in preventing long-term stroke/TIA in elderly patients, it carries a significantly higher risk of periprocedural mortality and complications compared to younger patients.
Warrants caution selecting elderly patients for LAAC; extends meta-analytic evidence on age-related procedural risks.
Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an established therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF); however, there is a limited understanding of LAAC in elderly patients (≥75 years old). We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the procedural complications and long-term outcomes after LAAC in the elderly versus the non-elderly. Methods: We screened PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Procedural endpoints of interest included successful implantation LAAC rates, in-hospital mortality, major bleeding events, pericardial effusion/tamponade, stroke, and vascular access complications related to LAAC. Long-term outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding events, and stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) during follow-up. Results: Finally, 12 studies were included in the analysis; these included a total of 25,094 people in the elderly group and 36,035 people in the non-elderly group. The successful implantation LAAC rates did not differ between the groups, while the elderly patients experienced more periprocedural mortality (OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.79−3.83, p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), pericardial effusion/tamponade (OR 1.39; 95% CI: 1.06−1.82, p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), major bleeding events (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.17−1.48, p < 0.01; I2 = 0%), and vascular access complications (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.16−1.55, p < 0.01; I2 = 0%) than the non-elderly patients. The long-term stroke/TIA rates did not differ between the elderly and the non-elderly at least one year after follow-up. Conclusions: Even though successful implantation LAAC rates are similar, elderly patients have a significantly higher incidence of periprocedural mortality, major bleeding events, vascular access complications, and pericardial effusion/tamponade after LAAC than non-elderly patients. The stroke/TIA rates did not differ between both groups after at least one-year follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Han et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial Fibrillation (n=61,129). Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) vs. Non-elderly patients was evaluated on Periprocedural mortality (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.79-3.83, p=< 0.01). Left atrial appendage closure in elderly patients (≥75 years) was associated with higher periprocedural mortality (OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.79-3.83) and major bleeding compared to non-elderly patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: