Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs Direct Anticoagulants at Long Term

The PRAGUE-17 has shown that left atrial appendage closure is not inferior to direct anticoagulants at long term to prevent major cardiovascular, neurological, or bleeding events. Moreover, procedures not related to prosthesis implantation saw significant reduction.

Cierre de orejuela vs anticoagulantes directos a largo plazo

The PRAGUE-17 was a randomized non-inferiority study comparing left atrial appendage closure (Watchman or Amulet) with direct anticoagulants (95% received apixaban) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in addition to a history of cardio-embolism, clinically relevant bleeding or both (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥3). 

Primary end point was a combination of cardioembolic events (stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic thromboembolism), cardiovascular death, clinically relevant bleeding, or procedure related complications (only for atrial appendage closure).

It included 201 patients in each group (mean age 73.3 ± 7.0). After 3.5 year mean follow-up, atrial appendage closure resulted non inferior to direct anticoagulants for primary end point. 


Read also: PRAGUE-17: Appendage Closure vs. Direct Anticoagulant Agents.


Primary end point resulted similar for both for treatment intention and protocol analysis. 

Conclusion

At long term followup, left atrial appendage closure resulted non inferior to direct anticoagulants in the prevention of cardiovascular, neurological, and bleeding events. After device implantation, bleeding saw significant reduction with these devices.

Original Title: 4-Year Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Nonwarfarin Oral Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation.

Reference: Pavel Osmancik et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Jan 4;79(1):1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.10.023.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

More articles by this author

SMART-CHOICE 3 | Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel vs Aspirin Monotherapy in High Risk Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Courtesy of Dr. Juan Manuel Pérez. After post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) standard duration dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), the optimal long term monotherapy strategy is...

TAVR in Small Annuli: What Valve Should We Use?

One of the major challenges of severe aortic stenosis are patients with small aortic annuli, defined as ≤430 mm² aortic valve area. This condition...

Patients at High Risk of Bleeding After Coronary Angioplasty: Are Risk Assessment Tools ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT Useful?

Patients undergoing coronary stenting typically receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 to 12 months, consisting of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and aspirin. While DAPT...

ACC 2025 | TAVI in Low-Risk Patients: 5-Year Outcomes of EVOLUTE LOW RISK

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a valid alternative to surgery in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. However, one of its main limitations...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

SMART-CHOICE 3 | Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel vs Aspirin Monotherapy in High Risk Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Courtesy of Dr. Juan Manuel Pérez. After post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) standard duration dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), the optimal long term monotherapy strategy is...

RACE Trial: Effect of Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty and Riociguat on Right Ventricular Afterload and Function in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension

Even though pulmonary endarterectomy is the treatment of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), up to 40% of patients are not candidates because...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...