Key result
In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing left atrial appendage closure, those with prior percutaneous coronary intervention had similar rates of stroke or transient ischemic attack (2.8% vs 5.5%) compared to those without.
Why the study?
Antithrombotic therapy for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with percutaneous coronary intervention remains contradictory and challenging, prompting assessment of left atrial appendage closure.
Does left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) safely prevent thromboembolic and bleeding events in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with prior percutaneous coronary intervention compared to those without?
Population
109 patients with NVAF undergoing LAAC
Comparison
Patients with PCI vs patients without PCI
Design
Retrospective cohort study
Follow-up
Median 20.9 months
Authors
Loading...
LAAC may be considered for stroke prevention in NVAF-PCI patients; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Cohort (n=109)
Yes
Does left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) safely prevent thromboembolic and bleeding events in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with prior percutaneous coronary intervention compared to those without?
Absolute Event Rate: 2.8% vs 5.5%
p-value: p=1.000
LAAC is a safe and effective option for stroke prevention in NVAF patients with a history of PCI, demonstrating comparable long-term outcomes to those without PCI.
Yu et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (n=109). Prior percutaneous coronary intervention vs. No prior percutaneous coronary intervention was evaluated on Stroke/transient ischemic attack (p=1.000). In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing left atrial appendage closure, those with prior percutaneous coronary intervention had similar rates of stroke or transient ischemic attack (2.8% vs 5.5%) compared to those without.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: