Why the study?
Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in AF, but data comparing LAAO with DOACs are sparse.
Does left atrial appendage occlusion improve the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, and major bleeding compared to switching DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation intolerant to at least one anti-coagulant?
Does left atrial appendage occlusion improve the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, and major bleeding compared to switching DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation intolerant to at least one anti-coagulant?
In patients with atrial fibrillation intolerant to at least one DOAC, LAAO provides similar overall composite outcomes to switching DOACs, but is associated with a 51% reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.
LAAO versus DOAC switch in AF; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Background Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as an alternative to oral anti-coagulation therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but data comparing LAAO with direct oral anti-coagulant (DOAC) is sparse. Method This cohort study compared LAAO (with or without prior anti-coagulation) with a switch of one DOAC to another DOAC. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke and major bleeding. Results A total of 2,350 patients (874 in the LAAO group and 1,476 in the DOAC switch group) were generated by 1:2 propensity score matching. After a mean follow up of 1052 ± 694 days, the primary outcome developed in 215 (24.6%) patients in the LAAO group and in 335 (22.7%) patients in the DOAC switch group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.12; P=0.516). The LAAO group had a lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.60; P<0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.73; P<0.001), but similar risk of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.10; P=0.194). The major bleeding risk was similar overall (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.48, P=0.150), but was lower in the LAAO group after 6 months (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.97; P=0.032). Conclusions LAAO conferred a similar risk of composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke and major bleeding, as compared with DOAC switch. The risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were lower with LAAO. CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 1) What Is New? Data comparing left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with direct oral anti-coagulant (DOAC) in patient with atrial fibrillation (AF) was sparse. LAAO conferred a similar risk of composite outcome of all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke and major bleeding, as compared with switch of DOAC in patients with AF and intolerant to at least one anti-coagulant. The risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were halved with LAAO. 2) What Are the Clinical Implications? This study highlights the potential role of LAAO as a superior alternative to trying another DOAC for patients with AF and intolerant to at least one DOAC. Bleeding events after 6 months post LAAO were significantly reduced by 30% in the LAAO group as compared with the DOAC switch group, coinciding with the de-escalation in anti-thrombotic therapy. Reduction in bleeding during the first 6 months post LAAO represents a potential opportunity to further improve outcomes after LAAO.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ng et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: