RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
Background: Hypercoagulability and thromboembolic events are associated with poor prognosis in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Whether chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) improve the prognosis is yet controversial. The present study aimed to investigate the association between the chronic OAC and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched to identify studies that evaluated OAC for COVID-19 until 24 July 2021. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed to pool the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of all-cause mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. According to the type of oral anticoagulants [direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)], subgroup and interaction analyses were performed to compare DOACs and VKAs. Meta-regression was performed to explore the potential confounders on all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 12 studies involving 30,646 patients met the inclusion criteria. The results confirmed that chronic OAC did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.82-1.03; p = 0.165) or ICU admission (RR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.40-1.04; p = 0.073) in patients with COVID-19 compared to those without OAC. The chronic use of DOACs did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to VKAs (P interaction = 0.497) in subgroup and interaction analyses. The meta-regression failed to detect any potential confounding on all-cause mortality. Conclusion: COVID-19 patients with chronic OAC were not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and ICU admission compared to those without OAC, and the results were consistent across DOACs and VKA subgroups. Systematic Review Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier CRD42021269764.
