Debate: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. The clinical cardiology perspective

QUESTION: Briefly, what is the evidence behind the percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) regarding oral anticoagulation (OA)? Is there any evidence on direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DAOAs)? ANSWER: The main clinical evidence published on this regard comes from 3 randomized clinical t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Tomás Benito-González
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Permanyer 2021-05-01
Series:REC: Interventional Cardiology (English Ed.)
Online Access:https://recintervcardiol.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=618
Description
Summary:QUESTION: Briefly, what is the evidence behind the percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) regarding oral anticoagulation (OA)? Is there any evidence on direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DAOAs)? ANSWER: The main clinical evidence published on this regard comes from 3 randomized clinical trials (2 vs anti-vitamin K and 1 vs DAOAs), registries, and case series. The PROTECT AF clinical trial1 included 707 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and CHADS2 scores ≥ 1 who were randomized on a 2:1 ratio to receive the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, United States) or warfarin. The composite endpoint (stroke, cardiovascular death, and systemic embolism) was less prevalent in patients with the Watchman device (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.35-1.25); however, adverse events were more common in the device group (RR, 1.69; 95%CI, 1.01-3.19) mainly due to periprocedural complications. These increased adverse events ...
ISSN:2604-7322