Left atrial appendage closure outcomes in relation to atrial fibrillation patterns: a comprehensive analysis.

Objective: The effect of atrial fibrillation (AF) patterns on outcomes remains controversial. This study aims to evaluate the influence of AF type on the risk of cardiocerebrovascular events after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) at long-term follow-up. Methods: AF was categorized as paroxysmal AF (PAF) and non-PAF (NPAF). The baseline characteristics, procedural data, peri-procedural complications, and long-term outcomes between patients with PAF and NPAF after LAAC were compared. Results: We analyzed 410 AF patients (mean age 74.8 ± 8.2 years; 271 male; 144 with PAF, 266 NPAF). The NPAF group tended to be older (≥75 years), male, and have chronic kidney disease (CKD) compared with the PAF group. The procedural data and peri-procedural complications were comparable. During 2.2 ± 1.5 years of follow-up, the incidences of thromboembolism, major bleeding, and device-related thrombus (DRT) did not differ between the two groups. The observed risk of thromboembolism and major bleeding was significantly lower than the estimated risk based on the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, respectively, in patients who underwent LAAC, regardless of the AF type. NPAF patients were associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, and combined efficacy endpoints. This association disappeared after propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Conclusions: The risk of thromboembolism and major bleeding was lower in patients who underwent LAAC, regardless of the AF type. Although NPAF often coexists with multiple risk factors, it was not associated with worse long-term outcomes after LAAC when compared with PAF.

Effect of congestive heart failure on safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of congestive heart failure (CHF) on safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. METHODS: A total of 401 patients who consecutively underwent LAAC with Watchman and LAmbre devices were divided into CHF (85 cases) and non-CHF (316 cases) groups. Comparisons between groups were performed against data. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in implantation success and periprocedural complication rates between the two groups. During a mean 2.2 years of follow-up, the incidence rate of thromboembolism, major bleeding, device-related thrombus, and non-cardiovascular death was comparable. However, patients with CHF had significantly increased risk of all-cause death (P = 0.015), cardiovascular death (P = 0.014), and combined efficacy endpoints (P = 0.02). After performing propensity score matching, the risk of all-cause death (P = 0.01), cardiovascular death (P = 0.01), and combined efficacy endpoints (P = 0.006) was still higher. The logistic regression analyses identified CHF (OR: 3.642, 95% CI: 1.296-10.232, P = 0.014) as an independent predictor of cardiovascular death. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of atrial appendage occluder is effective and safe in NVAF patients with CHF. The increased risk of mortality and combined efficacy endpoints in patients with CHF versus non-CHF after LAAC may be associated with the high risk of CHF itself.

Comparative analysis of left atrial appendage closure efficacy and outcomes by CHA2DS2-VASc score group in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Background: Higher CHA2DS2-VASc score is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), regardless of oral anticoagulation (OAC) status. However, whether this association still exists in patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is unknown. We evaluated the impact of CHA2DS2-VASc score on LAAC efficacy and outcomes. Methods: A total of 401 consecutive patients undergoing LAAC were included and divided into 3 groups based on CHA2DS2-VASc score (0-2, 3-4, and ≥5). Baseline characteristics, periprocedural complications, and long-term outcomes were collected and compared across all groups. Results: There were no significant differences in implantation success, periprocedural complications, and long-term outcomes across all score groups. Kaplan-Meier estimation showed that the cumulative ratio of freedom from all-cause mortality (P = 0.146), cardiovascular mortality (P = 0.519), and non-cardiovascular mortality (P = 0.168) did not differ significantly by CHA2DS2-VASc score group. LAAC decreased the risks of thromboembolism and major bleeding, resulting in a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 82.4% (P < 0.001) and 66.7% (P < 0.001) compared with expected risks in the overall cohort, respectively. Subgroup analysis indicated that observed risks of thromboembolism and major bleeding were significantly lower than the expected risks in score 3-4 and score ≥5 groups, respectively. The level of RRR increased with CHA2DS2-VASc score (P < 0.001 for trend) for thromboembolism but not for major bleeding (P = 0.2729 for trend). Conclusion: Patients with higher CHA2DS2-VASc score did not experience worse outcomes, which may be partly attributed to more benefits provided by LAAC intervention in such patients compared to those with a low score.

Safety and effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and prior major bleeding.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate safety and effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in atrial fibrillation patients with prior major bleeding. METHODS: A total of 377 consecutive patients scheduled for LAAC with Watchman device were divided into bleeding group (n = 137) and non-bleeding group (n = 240). Data were compared between groups. RESULTS: The bleeding group had more patients ≥75 years old (P = 0.044), higher CHA2DS2-VASc (P = 0.029) and HAS-BLED scores (P = 0.001) than the non-bleeding group. During the long-term follow-up, except for thromboembolism event (P = 0.031), the incidences of major bleeding  , all-cause death  , co-primary efficacy events  , and the cumulative survival ratio after adjustment of confounding factors    were comparable. The observed thromboembolism rate was reduced by 86.3% (P = 0.0002) and 55.1% (P = 0.0293) and the observed major bleeding rate was decreased by 61.9% (P = 0.0393) and 35.7% (P = 0.2426) compared with expected risks in bleeding and non-bleeding groups, respectively. The risk reduction in thromboembolism and major bleeding were significantly greater in bleeding group versus non-bleeding group (all P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with prior bleeding, LAAC is a safe and effective alternative to anticoagulation therapy and seems to emerge as a higher efficacy in risk reduction of thromboembolism and major bleeding compared to those without prior bleeding.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure Yields Favorable Cardio- and Cerebrovascular Outcomes in Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation and Prior Stroke.

Introduction: Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and previous stroke are at significantly higher risk of stroke recurrence. Data on the efficacy of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) on these patients is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences of LAAC efficacy on long-term cardio- and cerebrovascular outcomes in NVAF patients with vs. without prior stroke. Methods: Three hundred and seventy consecutive NVAF patients who underwent LAAC were enrolled and divided into stroke and non-stroke groups based on history of previous stroke. Endpoints, such as thromboembolism, major bleeding, and mortality post-LAAC, were followed up among groups. Results: Patients in the stroke group had higher mean CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores compared to the non-stroke group (5.1 vs. 3.6 and 4.1 vs. 3.4, both P < 0.001, respectively). Over a median follow-up of 2.2 years, there were no significant differences in incidence rates of thromboembolism, device-related thrombus (DRT), major bleeding, and combined efficacy endpoints between the two groups. In both stroke and non-stroke groups, LAAC decreased the risk of thromboembolism [relative risk reduction (RRR) 87.5%, P = 0.034, and 74.6%, P = 0.004, respectively] and major bleeding (RRR 68.8%, P = 0.034, and 68.6%, P = 0.007, respectively) compared with predicted risk. The RRR in thromboembolism was greater in patients with vs. without prior stroke (OR 2.45, 95% CI: 1.20-5.12, P = 0.016). The incidence rates of all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular death were similar between the two groups, but the risks of cardiovascular death post-LAAC both before (1.4% vs. 8.1%, respectively, P = 0.038) and after adjustment for confounding factors (P = 0.048) were significantly decreased in the stroke group. Conclusions: Patients with vs. without prior stroke did not exhibit a worse clinical prognosis after LAAC. LAAC may provide an increased benefit in cardio-cerebrovascular outcomes in patients with previous stroke compared to those without previous stroke. Further research is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of LAAC in this field.