Key result
Device-related thrombosis occurred in four patients after left atrial appendage closure while receiving dabigatran, with complete resolution achieved after switching to rivaroxaban or warfarin.
Why the study?
Does dabigatran prevent device-related thrombosis in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage closure?
Case Report (n=4)
Does dabigatran prevent device-related thrombosis in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage closure?
Dabigatran 110 mg twice daily may be associated with an increased risk of device-related thrombosis after left atrial appendage closure, which can be successfully treated by switching to rivaroxaban or warfarin.
These cases suggest dabigatran may inadequately prevent device-related thrombosis after LAA closure; leaves open optimal post-procedural regimen selection.
Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an effective and safe operation strategy for stroke prevention in patients who are diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) but cannot tolerate long term anticoagulation medication. We presented four rare cases of thrombosis formation on the occluder device. After the LAAC operation was successfully performed on patients, they followed a course of anticoagulation with dabigatran (110 mg b.i.d.), and device-related thrombosis (DRT) occurred as indicated by a transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) during the follow-up period. Regressions were achieved after replacing dabigatran with rivaroxaban or warfarin for more than 1 month. No thrombosis or bleeding-related complications occurred in subsequent follow-ups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2020) conducted a case report in Atrial fibrillation (n=4). Dabigatran vs. Rivaroxaban or warfarin was evaluated on Resolution of device-related thrombosis. Device-related thrombosis occurred in four patients after left atrial appendage closure while receiving dabigatran, with complete resolution achieved after switching to rivaroxaban or warfarin.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: