Search

AimsLeft atrial appendage electrical isolation (LAAI) may improve the rhythm outcome in selected patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Controversy exists if LAAI is associated with an increased rate of thromboembolic complications. We sought to assess the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of interventional left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in comparison to oral anticoagulation (OAC) after electrical LAAI.Methods and resultsWeeks after index LAAI using the cryoballoon or a linear maze like ablation strategy patients’ left atrial appendage was invasively remapped. In case of persistent LAAI, LAAC was performed. Patients who refused invasive remapping continued OAC. The primary endpoint was composed of any stroke or systemic embolism (SE) and the occurrence of intracardiac thrombus. Secondary endpoints included stroke/SE, major bleeding, and all-cause death. Of 166 patients (51% female; mean age 70 ± 8 years; mean CHAD2S2VASc score 3.4 ± 1.8) after LAAI, 94 patients received LAAC (LAAC group) and 72 continued OAC (no LAAC). After LAAC, 83% of patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for 6 weeks and aspirin thereafter. During a mean follow-up of 778 ± 630 days, 5 and 11 primary endpoint events were observed in the LAAC and no LAAC group, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.75; P = 0.010]. The calculated annual thromboembolic event rates were 6.9% (no LAAC) and 2.3% (LAAC), respectively. Left atrial appendage closure significantly reduced the incidence of stroke and SE (HR 0.31, CI 0.1–0.98; P = 0.04).ConclusionAfter electrical LAAI for rhythm control in AF patients, interventional LAAC was associated with fewer thromboembolic complications when compared with OAC.