Why the study?
Although AF pattern predicts thromboembolic risk during anticoagulation, its prognostic importance for residual clinical risk after contemporary LAAO—including in patients with peri-device leak or device-related thrombus—was uncertain.
Does non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation pattern increase the 2-year hierarchical composite of death, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding compared to paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion?
Observational (n=3,459)
Yes
Does non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation pattern increase the 2-year hierarchical composite of death, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding compared to paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Atrial fibrillation pattern independently stratifies residual clinical risk after left atrial appendage occlusion, with non-paroxysmal AF carrying a significantly higher risk of stroke, peri-device leak, and device-related thrombus.
Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) pattern predicts thromboembolic risk during anticoagulation, but its prognostic importance after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is uncertain. Objectives To determine whether AF pattern independently predicts residual clinical risk after contemporary LAAO and whether peri-device leak (PDL) or device-related thrombus (DRT) identify a persistently high-risk subgroup. Methods We studied 3,459 patients with documented AF pattern undergoing LAAO in a contemporary multicenter registry. AF was classified as paroxysmal, persistent or long-standing persistent, or permanent. The primary endpoint was a 2-year hierarchical composite of death, stroke or systemic embolism (stroke/SE), and major bleeding analyzed by win ratio. Inverse probability weighting and propensity score methods adjusted for baseline differences. Follow-up imaging assessed PDL and DRT. Results After inverse probability weighting, persistent and permanent AF were associated with progressively worse hierarchical outcomes compared with paroxysmal AF (win ratios 1.39 and 1.59, respectively). Non-paroxysmal AF was associated with higher stroke risk (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.07–2.50), without increased mortality or major bleeding. PDL and DRT were more frequent in non-paroxysmal AF. In the PDL/DRT subgroup, non-paroxysmal AF was associated with higher first stroke/SE risk (HR 1.83; 95% CI 1.00–3.34), concentrated 180–540 days after LAAO. Conclusions AF pattern independently stratified residual clinical risk after LAAO, with progressively worse severity-weighted outcomes from paroxysmal to persistent and permanent AF. Excess risk was driven primarily by thromboembolism. In the PDL/DRT subgroup, the association was concentrated 180–540 days after LAAO, suggesting these patients may benefit from prolonged thromboembolic surveillance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion (n=3,459). Non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (persistent or permanent AF) vs. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was evaluated on 2-year hierarchical composite of death, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding analyzed by win ratio (Win ratio 1.39 (persistent AF) and 1.59 (permanent AF); Stroke HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.07-2.50).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: