Why the study?
Does left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) safely and effectively prevent thromboembolic and bleeding events in NVAF patients with a history of PCI compared to those without PCI?
Population
109 consecutive patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing successful left atrial appendage…
Comparison
Left atrial appendage closure in NVAF patients… vs Left atrial appendage closure in NVAF patients…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
median 20 months
Key result
In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing left atrial appendage closure, prior percutaneous coronary intervention did not significantly alter the risk of stroke or transient ischemic attack (2.8% vs 5.5%, p=1.000) compared to those without prior intervention.
Authors
Loading...
LAAC may be feasible in NVAF patients post-PCI; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized trials before practice change.
Cohort (n=109)
Yes
Does left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) safely and effectively prevent thromboembolic and bleeding events in NVAF patients with a history of PCI compared to those without PCI?
Absolute Event Rate: 2.8% vs 5.5%
p-value: p=1.000
LAAC is a safe and effective option for stroke prevention in NVAF patients with a history of PCI, showing comparable long-term outcomes to those without PCI and reducing expected thromboembolic and bleeding events.
Yu et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (n=109). Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. No percutaneous coronary intervention was evaluated on Stroke or transient ischemic attack (p=1.000). In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation undergoing left atrial appendage closure, prior percutaneous coronary intervention did not significantly alter the risk of stroke or transient ischemic attack (2.8% vs 5.5%, p=1.000) compared to those without prior intervention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: