Key result
LAAC reduces clinically important bleeding vs OAC while matching efficacy in AF ablation patients.
Why the study?
LAAC can be performed either sequentially or concomitantly with cardiac ablation, and this sub-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of LAAC versus OAC within these two ablation timing strategies.
Does catheter-based left atrial appendage closure reduce bleeding and prevent death, stroke, or systemic embolism compared to oral anticoagulation in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=1,600)
1:1
Does catheter-based left atrial appendage closure reduce bleeding and prevent death, stroke, or systemic embolism compared to oral anticoagulation in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation?
Left atrial appendage closure provides similar efficacy to oral anticoagulation with a lower risk of bleeding in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, regardless of whether performed concomitantly or sequentially.
BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) can be performed in separate procedures with cardiac ablation (sequentially) or concomitantly in the same operative session. OBJECTIVE: The OPTION trial aims to compare the efficacy and safety of LAAC with oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients who have undergone catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). The objective of this sub-analysis is to evaluate LAAC vs OAC within concomitant and sequential ablation timings. Randomization was stratified by AF catheter ablation procedure timing: Sequential (90-180 days prior to randomization) or Concomitant (within 10 days of randomization, 99% of procedures happened the same day). The primary safety end point was non-procedural major or clinically-relevant non-major bleeding. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of all-cause death, stroke, or systemic embolism at 36 months. RESULTS: In both the Concomitant (n = 654) and Sequential (n = 946) groups, the Device arm compared with Control had fewer primary safety end point events and similar rates of primary efficacy events and secondary safety events. Rates of acute safety events were low and similar between the Device and Control arms within the Concomitant group; the addition of LAAC to cardiac ablation sessions did not result in increased procedural events. CONCLUSIONS: For both Concomitant and Sequential ablation timing strategies, LAAC has similar efficacy compared with OAC and a lower risk of clinically important post-procedure bleeding in high-risk patients following AF ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saliba et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Atrial fibrillation (n=1,600). Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) vs. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) was evaluated on Primary safety: non-procedural major or clinically-relevant non-major bleeding; Primary efficacy: composite of all-cause death, stroke, or systemic embolism at 36 months. In 1,600 patients undergoing AF ablation, left atrial appendage closure had similar efficacy to oral anticoagulation and a lower risk of clinically important post-procedure bleeding.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: