Left Atrial Appendage Closure or Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation.
Summary
Left Atrial Appendage Closure or Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation. Original Article Abstract Background For patients with atrial fibrillation, the use of oral anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke is limited by the risk of bleeding. Left atrial appendage closure is considered for patients who are unsuitable candidates for long-term anticoagulation, but its role in patients who are eligible for anticoagulants has not been established. Methods In this ongoing, prospective, internat
Content
# Left Atrial Appendage Closure or Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation.
*Original Article*
# Abstract
## Background
For patients with atrial fibrillation, the use of oral anticoagulant
therapy to prevent stroke is limited by the risk of bleeding. Left atrial
appendage closure is considered for patients who are unsuitable candidates for
long-term anticoagulation, but its role in patients who are eligible for
anticoagulants has not been established.
## Methods
In this ongoing, prospective, international, randomized trial involving
patients with atrial fibrillation who were suitable candidates for
anticoagulation, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive either
device-based left atrial appendage closure (device group) or non-vitamin K
antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy (anticoagulation group). The
primary efficacy end point - a composite of death from cardiovascular causes,
stroke, or systemic embolism - was tested for noninferiority (noninferiority
margin, 4.8 percentage points) after 3 years of follow-up. The primary safety
end point, non-procedure-related bleeding, was tested for superiority.
## Results
Of the 3000 patients who underwent randomization, 1499 were assigned to
the device group and 1501 to the anticoagulation group. The mean (±SD) age of
the patients was 71.7±7.5 years, 31.9% of the patients were women, and the mean
CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.5±1.3. At 3 years, a primary efficacy end-point event
had occurred in 81 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 5.7%) in the device group
and in 65 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 4.8%) in the anticoagulation group
(difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.8 to 2.6;
P<0.001 for noninferiority). Non-procedure-related bleeding occurred in 154
patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 10.9%) in the device group and in 260 patients
(Kaplan-Meier estimate, 19.0%) in the anticoagulation group (hazard ratio, 0.55;
95% CI, 0.45 to 0.67; P<0.001 for superiority).
## Conclusions
Among patients with atrial fibrillation who were candidates for
anticoagulation, device-based left atrial appendage closure was noninferior to
NOAC therapy with respect to a composite of death from cardiovascular causes,
stroke, or systemic embolism and was superior to NOAC therapy for
non-procedure-related bleeding at 3 years. (Funded by Boston Scientific;
CHAMPION-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04394546.).
---
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2517213