Why the study?
Although trials demonstrated noninferiority of LAAC to warfarin, the net clinical benefit accounting for differences in clinical impact of different event types needed quantification.
Does left atrial appendage closure improve net clinical benefit compared to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does left atrial appendage closure improve net clinical benefit compared to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Left atrial appendage closure provides a long-term net clinical benefit over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation, as initial periprocedural risks are offset by reduced bleeding and mortality over time.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LAAC yields net clinical benefit over warfarin; confirms long-term advantage beyond noninferiority in AF.
Background The PROTECT ‐ AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) trials demonstrated noninferiority of left atrial appendage closure ( LAAC ) to warfarin for the composite end point of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular death. This study aims to quantify the net clinical benefit ( NCB ) of LAAC versus warfarin, accounting for differences in clinical impact of different event types. Methods and Results We performed a post hoc analysis of the PROTECT ‐ AF and PREVAIL trials, which randomized atrial fibrillation patients to LAAC or warfarin in a 2:1 fashion. The trials enrolled patients in the United States and Europe between 2005 and 2012 with paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent atrial fibrillation and CHADS 2 risk scores ≥1. Relative to an index weight for death (1.0), events were assigned weights based on their disabling effect: (1) stroke event weights were based on modified Rankin scores in the base case analyses, and (2) major bleed (0.05) and pericardial effusion (0.05). NCB was calculated as the sum of weight‐adjusted events per 100 patient‐years. Among 1114 randomized subjects, the NCB of LAAC was 1.42% per year (95% CI 0.01–2.82, P =0.04) and a relative risk of 0.74 (95% CI 0.56–1.00). NCB point estimates favored warfarin early in follow‐up, but trended in favor of LAAC after 1 to 2 years. The benefit of LAAC was preserved across subgroups, with particular benefit observed in the subgroup of prior stroke and without diabetes mellitus. Conclusions This analysis demonstrates long‐term NCB of LAAC with Watchman over warfarin therapy, as the upfront risk of periprocedural events is counterbalanced over time by reduced bleeding events and mortality. Clinical Trial Registration UR : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT 01182441 and NCT 00129545.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brouwer et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: