Comparison of anticoagulation with left atrial appendage closure after atrial fibrillation ablation: Rationale and design of the OPTION randomized trial

Rationale and design of the anticoagulant therapy after left atrial appendage closure (ATLAAC) trial

INTRODUCTION

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has become a recommended addition to oral anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation, who undergo cardiac surgery. The procedure significantly reduces the risk of stroke and systemic arterial embolism, potentially making oral anticoagulation (OAC) unnecessary or even harmful, when considering the associated increased risk of bleeding. This publication describes the rationale and design of a randomized trial, testing the hypothesis that stopping OAC is noninferior to continuing OAC after surgical LAAC in terms of the primary endpoint.

METHODS

The ATLAAC trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, aiming to enroll 1,220 patients with atrial fibrillation, who have undergone surgical LAAC and remain on OAC. A cardiac CT scan is performed to confirm success of the LAAC. Patients with successful closure are randomized to stop or continue OAC. The primary endpoint is the first occurrence of ischemic stroke, systemic arterial embolism, or major bleeding over an expected mean follow-up of 4 years. Secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, any bleeding leading to hospitalization, blood transfusion, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, and quality of life measures.

TRIAL STATUS

Enrollment for the ATLAAC trial began in March 2024. As of January 18th, 2025, 554 patients have been enrolled in the study and 319 patients have been randomized. Recruitment is expected to continue for approximately 12 months. Follow-up will be stopped once 128 primary endpoints have occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The ATLAAC trial will evaluate the safety of stopping OAC after surgical LAAC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EU-CT: 2022-502986-92-00, clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT06401616.

Left atrial appendage occlusion in atrial fibrillation: shaping the future of stroke prevention

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, significantly increasing the risk of thromboembolic events, particularly ischemic stroke. The left atrial appendage (LAA) is the predominant site of thrombus formation in patients with AF, making it a crucial target for stroke prevention strategies. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as an important therapeutic alternative to oral anticoagulation, particularly in patients with contraindications to long-term anticoagulant therapy. This review examines the role of LAAO in AF management, discussing current indications, patient selection, procedural techniques, and clinical outcomes. We also explore the latest evidence from major clinical trials and real-world studies, highlighting the efficacy and safety of LAAO compared to standard anticoagulation. Additionally, we consider the unresolved questions and the potential future directions for this intervention, including emerging technologies and the integration of LAAO into broader AF management protocols. Our review underscores the growing importance of LAAO in reducing thromboembolic risk in AF patients, particularly those unable to tolerate traditional anticoagulation, and offers insights into the ongoing evolution of this treatment modality in clinical practice.

Comparison of left atrial appendage closure and oral anti-coagulation after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: Concomitant and sequential cohorts of the OPTION randomized controlled trial

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.

METHODS

OPTION is a multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial. Patients with AF and an elevated CHA2DS2-VASc score undergoing catheter ablation were randomly assigned (1:1) to catheter-based LAAC (Device) vs OAC (Control). 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.

Combined Catheter Ablation and Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Atrial Fibrillation: From Data to Clinical Reality

PURPOSE

Atrial fibrillation (AF) requires treatment that focuses on two main goals: symptom control and prevention of thromboembolic events. Catheter ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) constitute two well-established treatment methods in selected patients that accomplish these two goals correspondingly. Recently, there is increasing interest in performing the two procedures concomitantly in a so-called "combined" or "one-stop" procedure. This review aims to summarize the current data on the combined procedure, from the rationale and the techniques to its clinical efficacy, indications and future directions.

METHODS

An extensive search has been conducted using the MEDLINE/PubMed database to identify the relevant studies.

RESULTS

The reported success rates of the combined procedure are very high and frequently reach 100% when performed by experienced operators. The periprocedural and follow-up complications are low, the procedure is cost-effective, while there is significant stroke, bleeding and arrhythmia incidence reduction that does not seem to be undermined by interference between the two interventions. There are also a few indications that the one-stop procedure has a positive effect on left atrial mechanical function as it has been correlated with left atrial reverse remodeling. On the other hand, some studies suggest possible increase in peri-device leaks (PDLs), compared with LAAO alone, which could in turn negatively affect the clinical outcomes. Most available studies are small and observational, with a lack of randomized controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

Catheter ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion can be safely and effectively combined in a cost-effective single procedure in carefully selected patients.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure after Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulation is recommended after ablation for atrial fibrillation among patients at high risk for stroke. Left atrial appendage closure is a mechanical alternative to anticoagulation, but data regarding its use after atrial fibrillation ablation are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted an international randomized trial involving 1600 patients with atrial fibrillation who had an elevated score (≥2 in men and ≥3 in women) on the CHA2DS2-VASc scale (range, 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of stroke) and who underwent catheter ablation. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo left atrial appendage closure or receive oral anticoagulation. The primary safety end point, tested for superiority, was non-procedure-related major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. The primary efficacy end point, tested for noninferiority, was a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or systemic embolism at 36 months. The secondary end point, tested for noninferiority, was major bleeding, including procedure-related bleeding, through 36 months.

RESULTS

A total of 803 patients were assigned to undergo left atrial appendage closure, and 797 to receive anticoagulant therapy. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 69.6±7.7 years, 34.1% of the patients were women, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.5±1.3. At 36 months, a primary safety end-point event had occurred in 65 patients (8.5%) in the left atrial appendage closure group (device group) and in 137 patients (18.1%) in the anticoagulation group (P<0.001 for superiority); a primary efficacy end-point event had occurred in 41 patients (5.3%) and 44 patients (5.8%), respectively (P<0.001 for noninferiority); and a secondary end-point event had occurred in 3.9% and 5.0% (P<0.001 for noninferiority). Complications related to the appendage closure device or procedure occurred in 23 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients who underwent catheter-based atrial fibrillation ablation, left atrial appendage closure was associated with a lower risk of non-procedure-related major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding than oral anticoagulation and was noninferior to oral anticoagulation with respect to a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or systemic embolism at 36 months. (Funded by Boston Scientific; OPTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03795298.).

Structural Heart Disease Interventions. Year in Review 2023-2024

In 2023-2024, there was a surge in research on structural heart disease. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the field for both general and interventional cardiologists, especially those with a keen interest in structural heart interventions. It summarizes the most important randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, retrospective analyses, data registries, and noteworthy late-breaking studies unveiled at prominent cardiology conferences.

The Reconstructed Individual Patient Data from Kaplan-Meier (IPDfromKM) Method for Non-Inferiority Analyses: A New Potential Application

The IPDfromKM method, or Shiny method, is an artificial intelligence tool that enables indirect comparisons between studies by reconstructing individual patient data (IPD) from Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. The IPDfromKM method is generally used for superiority analyses, but a further application could be represented by non-inferiority analyses. However, there are no studies supporting this methodological hypothesis. The aim of this work was to validate the IPDfromKM method for non-inferiority analyses by "exploiting" the well-described non-inferiority of implantable devices occluding the left atrial appendage compared to oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. We performed a systematic review searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the PubMed database and found five studies. The R software (version 4.3.3) was used to perform a standard survival analysis comparing Watchman and Amlet devices with warfarin. The hazard ratio (HR), with 95% confidence interval (CI), was the main parameter of our analysis. The results confirmed the non-inferiority of Amlet and Watchman compared to warfarin (HR of Watchman vs. warfarin: 1.23, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.9; HR of Amlet vs. warfarin: 1.05, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.80). Therefore, we proposed a new application of the IPDfromKM method that could be potentially relevant in decision-making for the management of this common cardiac arrhythmia and a wide range of other pathological conditions.

Outcomes of Combined Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion and Transcatheter Mitral Edge-to-Edge Repair: The WATCH-TEER Study

Background

Up to 50% of patients undergoing mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) have an indication for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). However, prospective evaluation of this strategy is lacking.

Objectives

The aim of the study was to prospectively evaluate the outcomes of combined LAAO and MTEER.

Methods

The WATCH-TEER study is a prospective multicenter registry that aims to assess the feasibility and safety of concomitant MTEER with MitraClip and LAAO with WATCHMAN-FLX in patients with an approved clinical indication for both procedures. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, life-threatening, or major bleeding at 45 days.

Results

A total of 24 patients were included between October 2020 and March 2024. Mean age was 79.5 ± 6.3 years, and 83% were males. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons operative risk score was 11.8% ± 5.3%, the CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.5 ± 1.1, and the HAS-BLED score was 3.3 ± 1.5. Total procedure time was 103.6 ± 33.7 minutes. At 45 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 21% (95% CI: 5%-37%, n = 5/24) of patients, all of which occurred after discharge including 1 cardiac death, 1 ischemic stroke, 1 trauma-related intracranial hemorrhage, and 2 nonprocedural major bleeds. At 45 days, most patients (68%) had ≤2+ mitral regurgitation, and 72% of patients were in NYHA functional class I-II symptoms. Additionally, 71% of patients were not on anticoagulation, compared with only 20% at baseline.

Conclusions

Combining LAAO with MTEER is feasible in patients who have a clinical indication for both procedures.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Expanding Indications and New Developments

Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is recommended in several major international society guidelines as a viable alternative to therapeutic anticoagulation for the prevention of ischemic stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation or flutter. Recent innovations in device development have improved the safety and procedural success of LAAO, further fueling enthusiasm for expanding its indications beyond patients with high-bleeding risk from oral anticoagulation use. It is the aim of this review to provide historical context in addition to recent updates and upcoming developments and provide practical suggestions on how best to care for patients who are candidates for LAAO in contemporary practice. Recent data comparing the safety and efficacy of post-LAAO antiplatelet vs. antithrombotic therapy will be highlighted, with specific recommendations regarding which patients are best suited for each strategy. We will also address the safety and practical considerations provided by emerging trials on concomitant LAAO during other structural heart interventions such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement and mitral valve interventions, as well as electrophysiology procedures including catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation and pacemaker implantation. Practical considerations for the use of transesophageal echocardiography or intracardiac echocardiography for procedural guidance will also be discussed. As the evidence supporting LAAO continues to evolve, this review will serve as a primer on the recent and upcoming advances in device technology and management strategies positioned to further push LAAO forward into the future.

Ablation Strategies for Repeat Procedures in Atrial Fibrillation Recurrences Despite Durable Pulmonary Vein Isolation: The Prospective Randomized ASTRO AF Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND

Ablation strategies for patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation and isolated pulmonary veins vary and their effects on arrhythmia recurrence remain unclear. A prospective randomized German multicenter trial sought to compare 2 ablation strategies in this patient cohort.

METHODS

Patients with atrial fibrillation despite durable pulmonary vein isolation were randomly assigned at 7 centers to undergo low-voltage area ablation using 3-dimensional mapping and irrigated radiofrequency current ablation (group A) or empirical left atrial appendage isolation (LAAI) using the cryoballoon followed by staged interventional left atrial appendage closure (group B). The primary end point was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias between 91 and 365 days after index ablation. The study was powered for superiority of LAAI compared with low-voltage area.

RESULTS

Patients (40% women; mean age, 68.8±8 years) with paroxysmal (32%) or persistent atrial fibrillation (68%) were randomized to undergo low-voltage area ablation (n=79) or cryoballoon-guided LAAI (n=82). After a planned interim analysis, enrollment was halted for futility on January 10, 2023. In the LAAI group, 77 of 82 left atrial appendages were successfully isolated with subsequent left atrial appendage closure in 57 patients. Procedure-related complications occurred in 4 (5%) and 11 (13.5%) patients in group A and B, respectively (P=0.10). The median follow-up was 367 days (interquartile range, 359-378). The Kaplan-Meier point estimate for freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias was 51.7% (CI, 40.9%-65.4%) for group A and 55.5% (CI, 44.4%-69.2%; P=0.8069) for group B.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study did not detect superiority of cryoballoon-guided LAAI over low-voltage area ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation despite durable PVI.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04056390.

An International Consensus Practical Guide on Left Atrial Appendage Closure for the Non-implanting Physician: Executive Summary

Many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are in need of stroke prevention are not treated with oral anticoagulation or discontinue treatment shortly after its initiation. Despite the availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such undertreatment has improved somewhat but is still evident. This is due to continued risks of bleeding events or ischemic strokes while on DOAC, poor treatment compliance, or aversion to anticoagulant therapy. Because of significant improvements in procedural safety over the years left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), using a catheter-based, device implantation approach, is increasingly favored for the prevention of thromboembolic events in AF patients who cannot have long-term oral anticoagulation. This article is an executive summary of a practical guide recently published by an international expert consensus group, which introduces the LAAC devices and briefly explains the implantation technique. The indications and device follow-up are more comprehensively described. This practical guide, aligned with published guideline/guidance, is aimed at those non-implanting physicians who may need to refer patients for consideration of LAAC.

Combined left atrial appendage occlusion and catheter ablation procedure for left atrial arrhythmias: A real-world, propensity-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Real-world studies comparing safety and efficacy of combined percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) and catheter ablation (CA) to LAAO alone are limited.

METHODS

Patients from a large US hospital system undergoing combined LAAO and left-atrial CA from 8/2020 to 2/2024 were retrospectively analyzed and compared to a control group undergoing LAAO alone. Controls were identified using a 1:2 propensity score match based on LAAO device type (Watchman FLX vs. Amulet), CHA2D2-VASc and Hypertension, Abnormal renal/liver function, Stroke, Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio [INR], Elderly, Drugs/alcohol (HAS-BLED) scores and compared for safety, sealing performance and clinical outcomes at 6 months.

RESULTS

Patients were younger in the combined (n = 72) than in the control group (n = 144, 70.2 ± 7.3 vs. 76.7 ± 6.9 years, p < 0.001) but otherwise comparable with a mean CHA2D2-VASc score of 4.2 ± 1.1 and 4.4 ± 1.2 (p = 0.26) and HAS-BLED score of 2.2 ± 0.8 and 2.3 ± 0.7 (p = 0.34). Successful LAAO implantation rates were the same (95.8% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.99) with longer procedure times seen in the combined group (156.5 ± 53 vs. 56 ± 26 min, p < 0.001). Both major (1.4% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.72) and minor (27.8% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.17) in-hospital complications were similar between the combined and control group, respectively. At 45 days, presence of peri-device leak (18.3% vs. 30.4%, p = 0.07) and device related thrombosis (4.5% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.96) on transesophageal echocardiogram did not differ. Finally, all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.99), thromboembolic (0% vs. 0%, p = 0.99) and bleeding (6.1% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.73) events during follow-up were comparable.

CONCLUSION

This large, real-world analysis indicates comparable safety and efficiency of combined LAAO and CA when compared with LAAO alone.

Tissue oedema following pulsed field ablation recognized during a concomitant left atrial appendage closure procedure: a case report

Background

In patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF), at high stroke risk, and who are ineligible for long-term oral anticoagulation, the left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) could be an alternative to anticoagulation. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a new non-thermal method for cardiac ablation modality based on high-voltage electrical energy for irreversible electroporation. We first report a case of a concomitant PFA pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and LAAC.

Case summary

A 74-year-old female patient was referred to our department for PVI for persistent AF (CHA2DS2-VASc score 5). A concomitant percutaneous LAAC was proposed because of a history of previous cerebellar transient ischaemic attack despite continuous oral anticoagulation therapy. Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved with a pentaspline PFA catheter, and LAAC was performed with a WATCHMAN FLX™ device (Boston Scientific, Plymouth, MN, USA). After PVI, a swelling of the left atrial ridge was observed, yet a 27 mm LAAC device was successfully implanted. The follow-up transesophageal echo (TEE) after 6 weeks showed complete resolution of the oedema, no device-related thrombus, but a slight proximal tilting of the LAAC device without leakage could be observed. The 6-month follow-up demonstrated a stable sinus rhythm, no stroke, or bleeding events were recorded.

Discussion

In this case of synchronous PFA-PVI procedure in AF and WATCHMAN FLX™ device implantation, the electroporation created an acute oedema at the ridge level which at the TEE follow-up after 6 weeks was resolved. This resulted in a slightly tilted WATCHMAN device position which was nevertheless stable and showed no leakage.

Efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure procedure in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation with contraindication and/or failure for oral anticoagulants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With the aim of reducing the risk of Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA) in patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF), Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) devices are emerging as an alternative to oral anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the efficacy and safety of the LAAO procedure in patients with NVAF and contraindications and/or failure for oral anticoagulants.

METHOD

The search for evidence was carried out in the electronic databases Medline and Embase till January 2024. Additional searches were conducted on Google Scholar. The clinical trials registry database was also consulted. Two blinded investigators performed the search, study selection, and data collection, and assessed quality and risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for randomized clinical trials. Meta-analyses of eligible trials were performed using RevMan 5.4.1 software. The random effects model was used for all analyses.

RESULTS

Five articles were selected, among which three were non-inferiority randomized clinical trials that analyzed the performance and safety of LAAO devices compared to the use of Vitamin K Antagonists (AVKs) or Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs). No randomized clinical trials were found that analyzed populations with absolute contraindications to oral anticoagulants. Having as primary outcomes analyzed the occurrence of stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic), cardiovascular or unexplained death and systemic embolism, the non-inferiority of the LAAO procedure compared to the use of oral anticoagulants was verified.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with an absolute contraindication to anticoagulation and/or failure to use oral anticoagulants, evidence for the use of LAAO devices is scarce.

Safety and feasibility of atrial fibrillation ablation after left atrial appendage closure: A single-center experience of the left atrial appendage closure first strategy

BACKGROUND

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are not suitable for long-term anticoagulant therapy undergo percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). The safety and feasibility of left atrial catheter ablation (CA) procedures after LAAC remain unclear. This study aimed to clarify the feasibility and safety of CA after LAAC, including in the early phase within 180 days.

METHODS

Characteristics and clinical outcomes of 46 patients with AF who had undergone both CA and LAAC within 2 years (mean age, 72 years; 29 men) were compared between those who had undergone CA-first (31 patients) and LAAC-first (15 patients).

RESULTS

The mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.8 and 3.3 points, respectively. The LAAC-first strategy was often used in patients with prior major bleeding and LAA thrombosis or sludge. In the LAAC-first group, the mean duration between both procedures was 212 days, and all LAAC-first patients, including seven patients in the early phase, could undergo CA without LAAC device-related complications; moreover, no cardiovascular adverse events were reported after both procedures (mean periods: 420 days). After CA post-LAAC, no device-related adverse events (device-related thrombosis, new peri-device leak appearance, peri-device leak increase, or device dislodgement) were observed, whereas, after LAAC post-CA, 3 new peri-device leak appearance events and 1 peri-device leak increase event were observed, especially patients who underwent LAAC in the early phase post-CA.

CONCLUSION

Based on single-center experience, left atrial CA in the presence of an LAAC device implanted including the early phase was safe and feasible.

Feasibility study on atrial fibrillation ablation with pulsed field ablation and concomitant occlusion of the left atrial appendage

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) are increasingly performed as individual procedures. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has significantly reduced procedure duration and may be advantageous for the combined approach.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We have launched a programme for simultaneous AF ablation using PFA and LAAO for patients qualifying for both treatments and excluding those with a complex anatomy. We compare procedure duration and fluoroscopy time against individual procedures (either AF ablation or LAAO alone), all performed by the same operators and using consistent technologies. We performed the combined procedure in 10 patients (50% males; median age 70 years) and excluded 2 patients (17%) because of a complex left atrial appendage anatomy. No death, stroke, or major bleeding events, including pericardial effusion, occurred. For single-procedure comparison, 207 AF ablation procedures and 61 LAAO procedures were available. The total median procedure duration was 79 min (range 60-125) for the combined procedure, 71 min (25-241) for individual AF ablation (51 min without and 78 min with 3-dimensional electroanatomic mapping), and 47 min (15-162) for individual LAAO. The respective fluoroscopy times were 21 (15-26), 15 (5-44), and 10 (3-50) min. For the combined procedure, femoral vein access to last PFA application lasted 49 min (34-93) and LAAO added 20 min (15-37).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous PFA-based AF ablation and LAAO in carefully selected patients is feasible and safe and can be executed within a short overall procedure duration.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate.

STRUCTURE

Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Our Current Failures and Required Research

Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is a common rhythm disorder of middle-aged to older adults that can cause ischemic strokes and systemic embolism. Lifelong use of oral anticoagulants reduces the risk of these ischemic events but increases the risk of major and clinically relevant hemorrhages. These medications also require strict compliance for efficacy, and they have nontrivial failure rates in higher-risk patients. Left atrial appendage closure is a nonpharmacological method to prevent ischemic strokes in atrial fibrillation without the need for lifelong anticoagulant use, but this procedure has the potential for complications and residual embolic events. This workshop of the Roundtable of Academia and Industry for Stroke Prevention discussed future research needed to further decrease the ischemic and hemorrhagic risks among patients with atrial fibrillation. A direct thrombin inhibitor, factor Xa inhibitors, and left atrial appendage closure are FDA-approved approaches whereas factor XIa inhibitors are currently being studied in phase 3 randomized controlled trials for stroke prevention. The benefits, risks, and shortcomings of these treatments and future research required in different high-risk patient populations are reviewed in this consensus statement.

Efficacy of Left Atrial Appendage Closure and Oral Anticoagulation After Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) proved to be noninferior to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in nonablated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LAAC with those of OAC therapy in patients after AF ablation. This study included patients who underwent catheter ablation (CA) of AF between January 2016 and December 2020. The cohort was divided into CA + LAAC and CA + OAC, where propensity score matching was used to select controls, and each group contained 682 subjects. The enrolled patients' mean age was 70.34 ± 8.32 years, and 47.3% were female; their CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.48 ± 1.17. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. After a 3-year mean follow-up, the incidence of thromboembolic events was 1.25 and 1.10 and that of major bleeding events was 0.65 and 1.72 per 100 patient-years in the CA + LAAC, and CA + OAC groups, respectively. The rate of thromboembolisms and major adverse cardiovascular events was similar between the 2 groups (hazard ratio [HR] 1.162, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.665 to 2.030, p = 0.598, HR 0.711, 95% CI 0.502 to 1.005, p = 0.053); however, that of major bleeding and all-cause death was significantly reduced with LAAC (HR 0.401, 95% CI 0.216 to 0.746, p = 0.004, HR 0.528, 95% CI 0.281 to 0.989, p = 0.046). There was no significant difference in periprocedural complications (p >0.05) and the rate of AF recurrence (OAC vs LAAC: 39.44% vs 40.62%, p = 0.658). LAAC is a reasonable and safer alternative to OAC therapy in high-risk patients after AF ablation.

Non-Pharmacological Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide. It is associated with increased mortality and morbidity, especially due to the increased risk of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism in these patients. For this reason, thromboembolism prevention is the cornerstone of managing AF, and oral anticoagulation is nowadays the first-line treatment. However, since most thrombi form in the left atrial appendage and anticoagulant therapy may have side effects and be contraindicated in some patients, surgical and percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) have emerged as a non-pharmacological alternative. This review summarizes all existing evidence on surgical and percutaneous LAAO.

Atrial fibrillation and stroke prevention: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is one pillar of the management of this common arrhythmia. Substantial advances in the epidemiology and associated pathophysiology underlying AF-related stroke and thrombo-embolism are evident. Furthermore, the introduction of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (also called direct oral anticoagulants) has clearly changed our approach to stroke prevention in AF, such that the default should be to offer oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention, unless the patient is at low risk. A strategy of early rhythm control is also beneficial in reducing strokes in selected patients with recent onset AF, when compared to rate control. Cardiovascular risk factor management, with optimization of comorbidities and attention to lifestyle factors, and the patient's psychological morbidity are also essential. Finally, in selected patients with absolute contraindications to long-term oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion or exclusion may be considered. The aim of this state-of-the-art review article is to provide an overview of the current status of AF-related stroke and prevention strategies. A holistic or integrated care approach to AF management is recommended to minimize the risk of stroke in patients with AF, based on the evidence-based Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway, as follows: A: Avoid stroke with Anticoagulation; B: Better patient-centred, symptom-directed decisions on rate or rhythm control; C: Cardiovascular risk factor and comorbidity optimization, including lifestyle changes.

Der interventionelle Vorhofohrverschluss: eine Alternative zur oralen Antikoagulation

Die orale Antikoagulation ist der Standard zur Prävention von Embolien bei Patienten mit Vorhofflimmern. Der interventionelle Vorhofohrverschluss ist eine Alternative zur oralen Antikoagulation bei Patienten mit Vorhofflimmern und Kontraindikationen oder Unverträglichkeiten einer oralen Antikoagulation, insbesondere bei klinisch relevanten Blutungen. Die Sicherheit des Verfahrens hat in den letzten Jahren erheblich zugenommen. Mehrere große randomisierte Studien vergleichen aktuell die Effektivität und Sicherheit der oralen Antikoagulation und des interventionellen Vorhofohrverschlusses.

Rhythm monitoring, success definition, recurrence, and anticoagulation after atrial fibrillation ablation: results from an EHRA survey

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major challenge for the healthcare field. Pulmonary vein isolation is the most effective treatment for the maintenance of sinus rhythm. However, clinical endpoints for the procedure vary significantly among studies. There is no consensus on the definition of recurrence and no clear roadmap on how to deal with recurrences after a failed ablation. The purpose of this study was to perform a survey in order to show how clinicians currently approach this knowledge gap. An online survey, supported by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Scientific Initiatives Committee, was conducted between 1 April 2022 and 8 May 2022. An anonymous questionnaire was disseminated via social media and EHRA newsletters, for clinicians to complete. This consisted of 18 multiple-choice questions regarding rhythm monitoring, definitions of a successful ablation, clinical practices after a failed AF ablation, and the continuance of anticoagulation. A total of 107 replies were collected across Europe. Most respondents (82%) perform routine monitoring for AF recurrences after ablation, with 51% of them preferring a long-term monitoring strategy. Cost was reported to have an impact on the choice of monitoring strategy. Self-screening was recommended by most (71%) of the respondents. The combination of absence of symptoms and recorded AF was the definition of success for most (83%) of the respondents. Cessation of anticoagulation after ablation was an option mostly for patients with paroxysmal AF and a low CHA2DS2-VASc score. The majority of physicians perform routine monitoring after AF ablation. For most physicians, the combination of the absence of symptoms and electrocardiographic endpoints defines a successful result after AF ablation.