Short-term non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants vs. warfarin in preventing device-related thrombosis after left atrial appendage closure

Effectiveness and safety of short-term anticoagulant regimens after left atrial appendage occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides an alternative for poor candidates of long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy; however, anticoagulant therapy after surgical procedures has limited use due to associated uncertainties. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the short-term use of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and warfarin after LAAO.

METHOD

Electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to November 11, 2022. Our study compared DOAC therapy and warfarin in patients after LAAO. A meta-analysis was conducted with the Review Manager software (version 5.4).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 13 cohort studies with a total of 32,607 patients. Our findings indicated that the incidence of stroke/TIA/SE, peri-device leaks>5 mm, device-related thrombosis, and all-cause mortality were not significantly different between the two groups after LAAO (P > 0.05). The DOAC group had a significantly lower incidence of major bleeding (OR = 0.83, 95 % CI: 0.74-0.94, P = 0.003), any bleeding (OR = 0.34, 95 % CI: 0.23-0.51, P < 0.001), stroke/TIA/SE and major bleeding (OR = 0.57, 95 % CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03), and any major adverse event (OR = 0.89, 95 % CI:0.82-0.97, P = 0.010) than the warfarin group. The subgroup analysis revealed that the rate of stroke/TIA/SE was similar in the two groups in terms of the different regions, follow-up time, study type, anticoagulant strategy, and bleeding risk. The incidence of major bleeding in the DOAC group was significantly lower than that in the warfarin group in North America, as well as at follow-up period ≤6 months, retrospective cohort, HAS-BLED average score ≥ 3. In addition, the risk of major bleeding was higher with the combination of OAC and single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) than with OAC alone. Finally, in the North American region, retrospective cohort, and HAS-BLED average score ≥ 3, the incidence of any serious adverse event in the DOAC group was still significantly lower than that in the warfarin group.

CONCLUSION

Compared to warfarin, DOAC reduced the risk of major bleeding and any serious adverse event in patients after LAAO. This advantage was particularly notable in North America and high-risk populations for bleeding. In addition, the incidence of device-related thrombosis, peri-device leaks, stroke/TIA/SE and all-cause mortality were similar in both groups. The risk of major bleeding was lower in patients taking OAC alone compared with those taking OAC plus SAPT, without increasing the risk of thrombosis.

Network Meta-Analysis of Initial Antithrombotic Regimens After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

BACKGROUND

The optimal antithrombotic therapy following left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, the authors sought to compare the efficacy and safety of various antithrombotic strategies after LAAO.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, LILACS, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for studies reporting outcomes after LAAO, stratified by antithrombotic therapy prescribed at postprocedural discharge. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT), dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), DOAC plus SAPT, VKA plus SAPT, and no antithrombotic therapy were analyzed. We performed a frequentist random effects model network meta-analysis to estimate the OR and 95% CI for each comparison. P-scores provided a ranking of treatments.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies comprising 12,451 patients with nonvalvular AF were included. DAPT, DOAC, DOAC plus SAPT, and VKA were significantly superior to no therapy to prevent device-related thrombosis. DOAC was associated with lower all-cause mortality than VKA (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.17-0.89; P = 0.03). Compared with SAPT, DAPT was associated with fewer thromboembolic events (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.29-0.88; P = 0.02), without a difference in major bleeding. In the analysis of P-scores, DOAC monotherapy was the strategy most likely to have lower thromboembolic events and major bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

In this network meta-analysis comparing initial antithrombotic therapies after LAAO, monotherapy with DOAC had the highest likelihood of lower thromboembolic events and major bleeding. DAPT was associated with a lower incidence of thromboembolic events compared with SAPT and may be a preferred option in patients unable to tolerate anticoagulation.

Short-term antithrombotic strategies after left atrial appendage occlusion: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as a stroke prevention strategy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), and these patients were required to receive antithrombotic therapy post-procedure. However, the optimal antithrombotic strategy after LAAO remains controversial. This study explored the safety and efficacy of different antithrombotic strategies after LAAO through a network comparison method. Methods: We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that reported the interested efficacy and safety outcomes (stroke, device-related thrombus (DRT), and major bleeding) of different antithrombotic strategies [DAPT (dual antiplatelet therapy), DOACs (direct oral anticoagulants), and VKA (vitamin k antagonist)] in patients who had experienced LAAO. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analysis were performed for the interested outcomes. Risk ratios (RRs) with their confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. The rank of the different strategies was calculated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: Finally, 10 observational studies involving 1,674 patients were included. There was no significant difference in stroke, DRT, and major bleeding among the different antithrombotic strategies (DAPT, DOACs, and VKA). Furthermore, DAPT ranked the worst in terms of stroke (SUCRA: 19.8%), DRT (SUCRA: 3.6%), and major bleeding (SUCRA: 6.6%). VKA appeared to be superior to DOACs in terms of stroke (SUCRA: 74.9% vs. 55.3%) and DRT (SUCRA: 82.3% vs. 64.1%) while being slightly inferior to DOACs in terms of major bleeding (SUCRA: 71.0% vs. 72.4%). Conclusion: No significant difference was found among patients receiving DAPT, DOACs, and VKA in terms of stroke, DRT, and major bleeding events after LAAO. The SUCRA indicated that DAPT was ranked the worst among all antithrombotic strategies due to the higher risk of stroke, DRT, and major bleeding events, while VKAs were ranked the preferred antithrombotic strategy. However, DOACs are worthy of consideration due to their advantage of convenience.

3-Year outcomes after left atrial appendage closure in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: cardiomyopathy related with increased death and stroke rate

INTRODUCTION

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a novel treatment for stroke prevention in high-risk patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). However, the long-term outcomes after LAAC in Chinese NVAF patients are still lacking.

METHODS

This was a single-center, bidirectional, nonrandomized registered study. Patients who underwent LAAC implantation from May 2014 to April 2021 in a large Chinese center were enrolled. The primary endpoint was combined all-cause death and stroke.

RESULTS

From May 2014 to April 2021, a total of 673 NVAF patients were enrolled. The overall successful implantation rate was 97.62% (657 of 673). The rate of perioperative adverse events was 1.19% (8 of 673), including 3 cardiac tamponades, 2 ischemic strokes, one device-related thrombus (DRT) and 2 device dislocations. 604 (92.24%) patients completed the follow-up, the median follow-up period was 36.9 months (IQR 24.8-56.5 months). 16 stroke events occurred in 15 patients (one patient suffered from both hemorrhagic and ischemic strokes). 13 patients (2.15%) had ischemic stroke, and the fatal rate was 0.33% (2 of 604). 3 patients (0.15%) suffered from hemorrhagic stroke, and the fatal rate was 0.17% (1 of 604). The overall stroke rate was 0.74% per-year. The combined death and stroke rate was 1.93% per-year. In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, age ≥ 75 (hazard ratio 2.264, 95% CI 1.074-4.772, P = 0.032) and ventricular cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio 2.738, 95% CI 1.060-7.071, P = 0.037) were independent predictors of combined mortality and stroke.

CONCLUSION

The overall successful implantation rate of LAAC was 97.62% and the rate of perioperative adverse events was 1.19% in this study, and the stroke rate was 0.74% per year during the long-term follow-up. Age ≥ 75 years and ventricular cardiomyopathy were independent predictors of the primary endpoint. Trial registration This study was retrospectively registered.

An updated meta-analysis of device related thrombus following left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation

Aims

Device related thrombus (DRT) is a known complication of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). However, the relation between DRT and elevated risk of ischemic events remains controversial. This study is sought to reassessed the incidence of DRT following LAAC and the relation between DRT and elevated risk of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism (SE) with latest clinical trials included.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from their inception until April 2022 for studies that reported the incidence of DRT and compared the incidence of both stroke and SE between DRT patients and non-DRT patients.

Results

In 59 eligible studies, the incidence of DRT was 366/12,845 (2.8%, ranging from 0 to 11%, I ² = 64%). The incidence of DRT was not statistically different between single-seal device (SS) and dual-seal device (DS) in subgroup analysis [171/6,190 (2.8%) vs. 78/3,023 (3.6%); p = 0.93]. The pooled incidence of stroke (26 studies, 7,827 patients) in patients with and without DRT was 11.5% in DRT patients and 2.9% among non-DRT patients (OR: 5.08; 95% CI = 3.47-7.44). In the sensitivity analysis, DRT was associated with higher rate of stroke (12.1 vs. 3.2%; OR: 4.14; 95% CI = 2.69-6.38) and SE (16.0 vs. 3.8%; OR: 4.48; 95% CI = 3.04-6.62).

Conclusion

The incidence of DRT was low and similar between SS and DS devices. DRT was associated with increased rates of ischemic events. The occurrence rate of ischemic events associated DRT was comparable between two occlusion mechanism devices.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/], identifier [CRD42022326179].

Comparison of outcomes between novel oral anticoagulants and warfarin monotherapy in patients with left atrial appendage closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Pivotal trials of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) used dedicated post-procedure antithrombotic protocols. However, there is no consensus on the selection of new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) and warfarin monotherapy after LAAC. This study aims to compare NOAC with warfarin monotherapy for efficacy and safety in patients undergoing LAAC.

Methods

A database search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov for trials that compared NOAC with warfarin monotherapy after LAAC. The effective outcomes included any major adverse events (all-cause death, stroke, major bleeding) and their individual components. Safety outcomes included all-cause death, major bleeding, total bleeding, DRT, and PDL >5 mm.

Results

We included 10 non-randomized clinical trials with 10,337 patients, of whom 4,960 patients received NOAC, while 5,377 patients received warfarin. There were no statistically significant differences in any major adverse events (LogOR: −0.11, 95% CI: −0.27, 0.04, P = 0.16), stroke (LogOR: 0.00, 95% CI: −0.42, 0.42, P = 1.00), all-cause death (LogOR: −0.23, 95% CI: −0.48, 0.02, P = 0.07), major bleeding (LogOR: −0.22, 95% CI: −0.45, 0.01, P = 0.06). NOAC was associated with a significant reduction in total bleeding (LogOR: −1.01, 95% CI: −1.47, −0.55, P < 0.0001) compared to warfarin. No statistically significant differences were found in DRT (LogOR: −0.19, 95% CI: −0.15, 0.52, P = 0.27) and PDL >5 mm (LogOR: 0.19, 95% CI: −0.33, 0.72, P = 0.47). Meta-regression and subgroup analysis showed that total bleeding (LogOR: −1.56, 95% CI: −2.15, −0.97, P < 0.001) was significantly lower in the NOAC group in the subgroup of <75 y.

Conclusion

After LAAC, NOAC monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared to warfarin monotherapy for 45 days. There was no significant difference between NOAC and warfarin in terms of other results.

Systematic review registration

www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd, identifier: CRD42022361244.

Direct Oral Anticoagulant Versus Warfarin After Left Atrial Appendage Closure With WATCHMAN: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In the pivotal WATCHMAN trials, warfarin was used for post-procedural anticoagulation in the first 45 days after left atrial appendage closure. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus warfarin after WATCHMAN.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of five electronic databases to identify studies comparing DOAC with warfarin after WATCHMAN. We pooled outcomes for the efficacy (thromboembolism, device-related thrombus [DRT], peri-device leak [PDL] >5mm) and safety endpoints (bleeding, mortality). Thromboembolism was defined as ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism.

RESULTS

We included 10 cohort studies with 2,440 patients, of whom 1,397 (57.3%) received DOAC. Concerning peri-procedural outcomes (within 7 days following implantation), DOAC was associated with a reduction in major bleeding (Risk ratio [RR] 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.11-0.92) compared with warfarin, without significant differences in all bleeding (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.15-1.42) and thromboembolism (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.21-4.16). On first follow-up transesophageal echocardiography, DRT (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.39-1.60) and PDL>5mm (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.16-1.20) were comparable among groups. With a mean follow-up of 1.5-12 months, DOAC was associated with reductions in major bleeding (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.89) and all bleeding (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.25-0.58) compared with warfarin. The outcomes of thromboembolism (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.36-1.73) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.19-1.28) were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Following WATCHMAN implantation, DOAC was associated with reductions in major bleeding and all bleeding compared with warfarin at mid-term follow-up. The outcomes of thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, DRT, and PDL >5mm were comparable among groups.