Lower rate of major bleeding in very high risk patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion: A propensity score-matched comparison with direct oral anticoagulant.

BACKGROUND

Long-term oral anticoagulation is the mainstay therapy for thromboembolic (TE) prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) could be a safe alternative to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with a very high TE risk profile.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of LAAO vs DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation at very high stroke risk (CHADS-VASc [congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category] score ≥ 5).

METHODS

Data from patients with CHADS-VASc score ≥ 5 were extracted from a prospective multicenter database. To attenuate the imbalance in covariates between groups, propensity score matching was used (covariates: CHADS-VASc and HAS-BLED [hypertension, abnormal renal or liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs or alcohol] scores), which resulted in a matched population of 277 patients per group. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, TE events, and clinically relevant bleeding during follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 2381 patients, 554 very high risk patients were included in the study (mean age 79 ± 7 years; CHADS-VASc score 5.8 ± 0.9; HAS-BLED score 3.0 ± 0.9). The mean follow-up duration was 25 ± 11 months. A higher incidence of the composite end point was documented with DOACs compared with LAAO (14.9 events per 100 patient-years in the DOAC group vs 9.4 events per 100 patient-years in the LAAO group; P = .03). The annualized clinically relevant bleeding risk was higher with DOACs (6.3% vs 3.2%; P = .04), while the risk of TE events was not different between groups (4.1% vs 3.2%; P = .63).

CONCLUSION

In high-risk patients, LAAO had a similar stroke prevention efficacy but a significantly lower risk of clinically relevant bleeding when compared with DOACs. The clinical benefit of LAAO became significant after 18 months of follow-up.