Key result
The COMPARE LAAO trial is designed to evaluate the superiority of left atrial appendage occlusion versus standard of care in preventing thromboembolic events among 609 AF patients ineligible for OAC.
Why the study?
Randomized controlled trial data evaluating LAAO for stroke prevention in AF patients with a long-term or permanent contraindication to OAC are lacking.
Does percutaneous LAAO reduce the risk of stroke and thromboembolic events compared to standard of care in AF patients with high stroke risk who are ineligible for oral anticoagulation?
RCT (n=609)
Open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE)
2:1
Yes
Does percutaneous LAAO reduce the risk of stroke and thromboembolic events compared to standard of care in AF patients with high stroke risk who are ineligible for oral anticoagulation?
The COMPARE LAAO trial is designed to provide randomized data on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of LAAO versus standard of care in AF patients contraindicated for oral anticoagulation.
Fills evidence gap for OAC-ineligible AF patients; first RCT to test LAAO vs medical therapy in this population.
BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). In patients with a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC randomized controlled trial (RCT) data is lacking. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of LAAO in AF patients who are ineligible to use OAC. The co-primary efficacy endpoint is (1) time to first occurrence of stroke (ischemic, hemorrhagic, or undetermined) and (2) time to first occurrence of the composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and systemic embolism (SE). The primary safety endpoint is the 30-day rate of peri-procedural complications. STUDY DESIGN: This is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE), superiority-driven RCT. Patients with AF, a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score ≥2 for men and ≥3 for women and a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC will be randomized in a 2:1 fashion to the device- or control arm. Patients in the device arm will undergo percutaneous LAAO and will receive post-procedural dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) per protocol, while those in the control arm will continue their current treatment consisting of no antithrombotic therapy or (D)APT as deemed appropriate by the primary responsible physician. In this endpoint-driven trial design, assuming a 50% lower stroke risk of LAAO compared to conservative treatment, 609 patients will be followed for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 years. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses will be performed to allow decision-making on reimbursement of LAAO for the target population in the Netherlands. SUMMARY: The COMPARE LAAO trial will investigate the clinical superiority in preventing thromboembolic events and cost-effectiveness of LAAO in AF patients with a high thromboembolic risk and a contraindication for OAC use. NCT TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04676880.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huijboom et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Atrial fibrillation (n=609). Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) vs. Standard of care (no antithrombotic therapy or antiplatelet therapy) was evaluated on Time to first occurrence of stroke and time to first occurrence of the composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and systemic embolism (SE). The COMPARE LAAO trial is designed to evaluate the superiority of left atrial appendage occlusion versus standard of care in preventing thromboembolic events among 609 AF patients ineligible for OAC.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: