Key result
Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure reduced the relative risk of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death by 40% (1.5% absolute reduction) compared with warfarin.
Why the study?
Does percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC) prevent stroke compared to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF)?
Does percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC) prevent stroke compared to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF)?
LAAC is an effective and safe alternative to warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.
peutic range, the need for lifelong anticoagulation monitoring, and multiple drug and food interactions, which was the impetus for the development of NOACs (nonwarfarin oral anticoagulants). LAAC is now performed across the world. The procedure prevents thromboembolism, particularly ischemic cardioembolic stroke, by occluding the LAA orifice with a specific device, because transesophageal echocardiography and autopsy studies suggested the LAA is the major source of thromboembolism in patients with NVAF, which led to the eft atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has proven its safety as an effective alternative to warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hidehiko Hara (2016) conducted an editorial in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC) vs. Warfarin was evaluated on Composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death (40% relative risk reduction). Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure reduced the relative risk of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death by 40% (1.5% absolute reduction) compared with warfarin.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: