Why the study?
Does percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have comparable feasibility and safety for secondary stroke prevention compared to primary stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Does percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have comparable feasibility and safety for secondary stroke prevention compared to primary stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation?
Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure appears feasible and safe for both primary and secondary stroke prevention in Chinese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LAAC may be feasible for secondary prevention; leaves open whether it reduces recurrence versus primary prevention and requires randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased stroke risk resulting from cardiac embolism of the left atrial appendage (LAA). Stroke tends to recur in NVAF patients. Yet safety and feasibility of secondary stroke preventions with LAA closure (LAAC) have not been assessed in detail. This retrospective study was designed to compare the feasibility and safety of LAAC in primary and secondary stroke preventions, in a real-world setting of Chinese patients. METHODS: From 2014 to 2015, non-valvular AF patients with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥1 were selected for percutaneous LAAC operations. Outcome observations of primary and secondary stroke preventions with Watchman devices were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: Overall, 122 patients were included. LAAC with Watchman devices were attempted in 115 patients, of whom 68 were for primary stroke prevention and 47 were for secondary prevention. Both the CHA2DS2-VASc score and the HASBLED score were significantly higher in the secondary prevention group (4.09 ± 1.06 vs. 1.93 ± 1.09 for CHA2DS2-VASc and 1.83 ± 1.03 vs. 1.26 ± 0.87 for HASBLED, P < 0.01). In both groups LAAC were achieved with high successful rate (98.53% in the primary prevention group and 100% in the secondary prevention group, P > 0.05) and low complication rates. The stroke rates were at a low level in both groups (1.47% in primary prevention group vs. 2.13% in secondary prevention group, P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our initial single-center experience, percutaneous LAA closure was a feasible and safe procedure for both primary and secondary stroke preventions in Chinese patients with nonvalvular AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: