Mount Sinai Heart The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, and The Marie-Josée and Henry R. Kravis Center for Cardiovascular Health Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY.
Department of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Amsterdam UMC University of Amsterdam, Heart Center Amsterdam The Netherlands.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Dec 3;8(23):e013525. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.013525. Epub 2019 Nov 22.
Background The PROTECT-AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) trials demonstrated noninferiority of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) to warfarin for the composite end point of stroke, systemic embolism, or cardiovascular death. This study aims to quantify the net clinical benefit (NCB) of LAAC versus warfarin, accounting for differences in clinical impact of different event types. Methods and Results We performed a post hoc analysis of the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials, which randomized atrial fibrillation patients to LAAC or warfarin in a 2:1 fashion. The trials enrolled patients in the United States and Europe between 2005 and 2012 with paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent atrial fibrillation and CHADS risk scores ≥1. Relative to an index weight for death (1.0), events were assigned weights based on their disabling effect: (1) stroke event weights were based on modified Rankin scores in the base case analyses, and (2) major bleed (0.05) and pericardial effusion (0.05). NCB was calculated as the sum of weight-adjusted events per 100 patient-years. Among 1114 randomized subjects, the NCB of LAAC was 1.42% per year (95% CI 0.01-2.82, =0.04) and a relative risk of 0.74 (95% CI 0.56-1.00). NCB point estimates favored warfarin early in follow-up, but trended in favor of LAAC after 1 to 2 years. The benefit of LAAC was preserved across subgroups, with particular benefit observed in the subgroup of prior stroke and without diabetes mellitus. Conclusions This analysis demonstrates long-term NCB of LAAC with Watchman over warfarin therapy, as the upfront risk of periprocedural events is counterbalanced over time by reduced bleeding events and mortality. Clinical Trial Registration UR: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01182441 and NCT00129545.
PROTECT-AF(Watchman 左心耳封堵技术预防房颤患者栓塞)和 PREVAIL(Watchman 左心耳封堵装置在房颤患者与长期华法林治疗中的比较)试验表明,左心耳封堵术(LAAC)在预防卒中、全身性栓塞或心血管死亡的复合终点方面不劣于华法林。本研究旨在量化 LAAC 相对于华法林的净临床获益(NCB),并考虑不同事件类型对临床影响的差异。
我们对 PROTECT-AF 和 PREVAIL 试验进行了事后分析,这些试验将房颤患者以 2:1 的比例随机分配至 LAAC 或华法林组。这些试验于 2005 年至 2012 年期间在美国和欧洲招募了阵发性、持续性或永久性房颤且 CHADS 风险评分≥1 的患者。与死亡的基准权重(1.0)相比,根据其致残效果为事件分配权重:(1)卒中事件权重基于基线分析中的改良 Rankin 评分,(2)大出血(0.05)和心包积液(0.05)。NCB 计算为每 100 例患者年的加权事件数之和。在 1114 名随机受试者中,LAAC 的 NCB 为每年 1.42%(95%CI:0.01-2.82,=0.04),相对风险为 0.74(95%CI:0.56-1.00)。NCB 点估计值在随访早期有利于华法林,但在 1 至 2 年后趋势有利于 LAAC。LAAC 的获益在各亚组中得以保留,在前卒中且无糖尿病亚组中观察到尤其明显的获益。
本分析表明,与华法林治疗相比,Watchman 左心耳封堵术具有长期的 NCB,因为围手术期事件的前期风险会随着时间的推移被出血事件和死亡率的降低所抵消。
UR:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov。唯一标识符:NCT01182441 和 NCT00129545。