Nejvíce citovaný článek - PubMed ID 34748929
4-Year Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Nonwarfarin Oral Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation
A significant proportion of patients who suffer from atrial fibrillation (AF) and are in need of thromboembolic protection are not treated with oral anticoagulation or discontinue this treatment shortly after its initiation. This undertreatment has not improved sufficiently despite the availability of direct oral anticoagulants which are associated with less major bleeding than vitamin K antagonists. Multiple reasons account for this, including bleeding events or ischaemic strokes whilst on anticoagulation, a serious risk of bleeding events, poor treatment compliance despite best educational attempts, or aversion to drug therapy. An alternative interventional therapy, which is not associated with long-term bleeding and is as effective as vitamin K anticoagulation, was introduced over 20 years ago. Because of significant improvements in procedural safety over the years, left atrial appendage closure, predominantly achieved using a catheter-based, device implantation approach, is increasingly favoured for the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients who cannot achieve effective anticoagulation. This management strategy is well known to the interventional cardiologist/electrophysiologist but is not more widely appreciated within cardiology or internal medicine. This article introduces the devices and briefly explains the implantation technique. The indications and device follow-up are more comprehensively described. Almost all physicians who care for adult patients will have many with AF. This practical guide, written within guideline/guidance boundaries, is aimed at those non-implanting physicians who may need to refer patients for consideration of this new therapy, which is becoming increasingly popular.
- Klíčová slova
- Anticoagulation, Atrial fibrillation, Bleeding, Left atrial appendage closure, Left atrial appendage occlusion, Prevention, Stroke,
- MeSH
- antikoagulancia škodlivé účinky MeSH
- cévní mozková příhoda * prevence a kontrola komplikace MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- fibrilace síní * komplikace diagnóza chirurgie MeSH
- konsensus MeSH
- krvácení chemicky indukované prevence a kontrola MeSH
- lékaři * MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- síňové ouško * chirurgie MeSH
- tromboembolie * etiologie prevence a kontrola MeSH
- uzávěr ouška levé síně MeSH
- vitamin K MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- Názvy látek
- antikoagulancia MeSH
- vitamin K MeSH
BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) has been considered the standard of care for stroke prophylaxis for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation; however, many individuals are unable or unwilling to take long-term OAC. The safety and efficacy of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have been controversial, and new trial data have recently emerged. We therefore sought to perform an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing OAC to percutaneous LAAC, focusing on individual clinical endpoints. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2000 through December 2021 for all RCTs comparing percutaneous LAAC to OAC in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Fixed and random effects meta-analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) were performed using the longest follow-up duration available by intention-to-treat. The prespecified primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Three RCTs enrolling 1516 patients were identified. The weighted mean follow-up was 54.7 months. LAAC was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.96; p = 0.023), hemorrhagic stroke (HR 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.61; p = 0.003), and major nonprocedural bleeding (HR 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.74; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between LAAC and OAC for any other endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence from RCTs suggests LAAC therapy is associated with reduced long-term risk of death compared with OAC. This may be driven by reductions in hemorrhagic stroke and major nonprocedural bleeding. There were no significant differences in the risk of all stroke. Further large-scale clinical trials are needed to validate these findings.
- Klíčová slova
- Atrial fibrillation, Left atrial appendage closure, Meta-analysis, Stroke,
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH