Search

Introduction: Observational studies have shown low bleeding rates in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated by left atrial appendage closure (LAAC); however, data from randomized studies are lacking. This study compared bleeding events among patients with AF treated by LAAC and nonvitamin K anticoagulants (NOAC)., Methods: The Prague-17 trial was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial that compared LAAC to NOAC in high-risk AF patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of a cardioembolic event, cardiovascular death, and major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH)., Results: The trial enrolled 402 patients (201 per arm), and the median follow-up was 3.5 (IQR 2.6-4.2) years. Bleeding occurred in 24 patients (29 events) and 32 patients (40 events) in the LAAC and NOAC groups, respectively. Six of the LAAC bleeding events were procedure/device-related. In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, LAAC was associated with similar rates of ISTH major or CRNMB (sHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.44-1.27, p = 0.28), but with a reduction in nonprocedural major or CRNMB (sHR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.97, p = 0.039). This reduction for nonprocedural bleeding with LAAC was mainly driven by a reduced rate of CRNMB (sHR for major bleeding 0.69, 95% CI 0.34-1.39, p = .30; sHR for CRNMB 0.43, 95% CI 0.18-1.03, p = 0.059). History of bleeding was a predictor of bleeding during follow-up. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common bleeding site in both groups., Conclusion: During the 4-year follow-up, LAAC was associated with less nonprocedural bleeding. The reduction is mainly driven by a decrease in CRNMB., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The PRAGUE-17 (Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs Novel Anticoagulation Agents in Atrial Fibrillation) trial demonstrated that left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) was noninferior to nonwarfarin direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for preventing major neurological, cardiovascular, or bleeding events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who were at high risk., Objectives: This study sought to assess the prespecified long-term (4-year) outcomes in PRAGUE-17., Methods: PRAGUE-17 was a randomized noninferiority trial comparing percutaneous LAAC (Watchman or Amulet) with DOACs (95% apixaban) in patients with nonvalvular AF and with a history of cardioembolism, clinically-relevant bleeding, or both CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥3 and HASBLED ≥2. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardioembolic events (stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism), cardiovascular death, clinically relevant bleeding, or procedure-/device-related complications (LAAC group only). The primary analysis was modified intention-to-treat., Results: This study randomized 402 patients with AF (201 per group, age 73.3 ± 7.0 years, 65.7% male, CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc 4.7 ±1.5, HASBLED 3.1 ± 0.9). After 3.5 years median follow-up (1,354 patient-years), LAAC was noninferior to DOACs for the primary endpoint by modified intention-to-treat (subdistribution HR [sHR]: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.56-1.18; P = 0.27; P for noninferiority = 0.006). For the components of the composite endpoint, the corresponding sHRs were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.39-1.20; P = 0.19) for cardiovascular death, 1.14 (95% CI: 0.56-2.30; P = 0.72) for all-stroke/transient ischemic attack, 0.75 (95% CI: 0.44-1.27; P = 0.28) for clinically relevant bleeding, and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.31-0.97; P = 0.039) for nonprocedural clinically relevant bleeding. The primary endpoint outcomes were similar in the per-protocol (sHR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.54-1.18; P = 0.25) and on-treatment (sHR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.56-1.20; P = 0.30) analyses., Conclusions: In long-term follow-up of PRAGUE-17, LAAC remains noninferior to DOACs for preventing major cardiovascular, neurological, or bleeding events. Furthermore, nonprocedural bleeding was significantly reduced with LAAC. (PRAGUE-17 [Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs Novel Anticoagulation Agents in Atrial Fibrillation]; NCT02426944)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by a research grant AZV 15-29565A from the Ministry of Health, Czech Republic. Dr Osmancik has received occasional speaking honoraria from Bayer and Abbott. Dr Taborsky has served on Advisory Boards for Bayer and Pfizer. Dr Kala has served on an Advisory Board and Speakers Bureau for Bayer; has served on an Advisory Board for Boston Scientific; and has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr Poloczek has received speaking honoraria from Abbott. Dr Haman has received speaking honoraria from Pfizer. Dr Zemanek has received speaking honoraria from Abbott and Bayer. Dr Peichl has received occasional speaking honoraria from Abbott; and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Biotronik, and Medtronic. Dr Havranek has received speaking honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim; and has served on an Advisory Board for Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Widimsky has received occasional honoraria from Bayer, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Reddy has received consulting income and grant support from Abbott Inc and Boston Scientific Inc; unrelated to this manuscript, he has also served as a consultant for Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera, Apama Medical, APN Health, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Axon Therapies, Backbeat, BioSig, Biosense Webster, BioTel Heart, Biotronik, Cardiac Implants, CardiaCare, Cardiofocus, Cardionomic, CardioNXT/AFTx, Circa Scientific, CoreMap, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou DiNovA EP Technology, East End Medical, EBR, EPD, Epix Therapeutics, EpiEP, Eximo, Farapulse, Fire1, Gore and Associates, HRT, Impulse Dynamics, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, LuxMed, Medlumics, Medtronic, Middlepeak, Nuvera, Philips, Pulse Biosciences, Sirona Medical, and Valcare Vizaramed; and owns equity in Ablacon, Acutus Medical, Affera, Apama Medical, APN Health, Aquaheart, Atacor, Autonomix, Axon Therapies, Backbeat, BioSig, Cardiac Implants, CardiaCare, CardioNXT/AFTx, Circa Scientific, Corvia Medical, Dinova-Hangzhou DiNovA EP Technology, East End Medical, EPD, Epix Therapeutics, EpiEP, Eximo, Farapulse, Fire1, HRT, Intershunt, Javelin, Kardium, Keystone Heart, LuxMed, Manual Surgical Sciences, Medlumics, Middlepeak, Newpace, Nuvera, Pulse Biosciences, Sirona Medical, Surecor, Valcare, and Vizaramed. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for mortality. The prevalence, clinical correlates, and prognostic impact of AF in Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) have not yet been investigated in a large patient cohort. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence, clinical correlates, and prognostic impact of AF in patients with TTS. Methods and Results Patients with TTS were enrolled from the International Takotsubo Registry, which is a multinational network with 26 participating centers in Europe and the United States. Patients were dichotomized according to the presence or absence of AF at the time of admission. Of 1584 patients with TTS, 112 (7.1%) had AF. The mean age was higher ( P <0.001), and there were fewer women ( P =0.046) in the AF than in the non-AF group. Left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower ( P =0.001), and cardiogenic shock was more often observed ( P <0.001) in the AF group. Both in-hospital ( P <0.001) and long-term mortality ( P <0.001) were higher in the AF group. Multivariable Cox regression analysis revealed that AF was independently associated with higher long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.50-3.55; P <0.001). Among patients with AF on admission, 42% had no known history of AF before the acute TTS event, and such patients had comparable in-hospital and long-term outcomes compared with those with a history of AF. Conclusions In patients presenting with TTS, AF on admission is significantly associated with increased in-hospital and long-term mortality rates. Whether antiarrhythmics and/or cardioversion are beneficial in TTS with AF should thus be tested in a future trial. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01947621.

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is noninferior to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for preventing atrial fibrillation (AF)-related stroke. However, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have an improved safety profile over VKAs, and their effect on cardiovascular and neurological outcomes relative to LAAC is unknown., Objectives: This study sought to compare DOACs with LAAC in high-risk patients with AF., Methods: Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs. Novel Anticoagulation Agents in Atrial Fibrillation (PRAGUE-17) was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing LAAC with DOACs. Patients were eligible to be enrolled if they had nonvalvular AF; were indicated for oral anticoagulation (OAC); and had a history of bleeding requiring intervention or hospitalization, a history of a cardioembolic event while taking an OAC, and/or a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc of ≥3 and HAS-BLED of >2. Patients were randomized to receive LAAC or DOAC. The primary composite outcome was stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, cardiovascular death, major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding, or procedure-/device-related complications. The primary analysis was by modified intention to treat., Results: A high-risk patient cohort (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc: 4.7 ± 1.5) was randomized to receive LAAC (n = 201) or DOAC (n = 201). LAAC was successful in 181 of 201 (90.0%) patients. In the DOAC group, apixaban was most frequently used (192 of 201; 95.5%). At a median 19.9 months of follow-up, the annual rates of the primary outcome were 10.99% with LAAC and 13.42% with DOAC (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53 to 1.31; p = 0.44; p = 0.004 for noninferiority). There were no differences between groups for the components of the composite endpoint: all-stroke/TIA (sHR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.40 to 2.51), clinically significant bleeding (sHR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.52), and cardiovascular death (sHR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.62). Major LAAC-related complications occurred in 9 (4.5%) patients., Conclusions: Among patients at high risk for stroke and increased risk of bleeding, LAAC was noninferior to DOAC in preventing major AF-related cardiovascular, neurological, and bleeding events. (Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs. Novel Anticoagulation Agents in Atrial Fibrillation [PRAGUE-17]; NCT02426944)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Atrial fibrillation (AF), with a prevalence of 1% to 2%, is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. Without antithrombotic treatment, the annual risk of a cardioembolic event is 5% to 6%. The source of a cardioembolic event is a thrombus, which is usually formed in the left atrial appendage (LAA). Prevention of cardioembolic events involves treatment with anticoagulant drugs: either vitamin K antagonists or, recently, novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC). The other (nonpharmacologic) option for the prevention of a cardioembolic event involves interventional occlusion of the LAA., Objective: To determine whether percutaneous LAA occlusion is noninferior to treatment with NOAC in AF patients indicated for long-term systemic anticoagulation., Study Design: The trial will be a prospective, multicenter, randomized noninferiority trial comparing 2 treatment strategies in moderate to high-risk AF patients (ie, patients with history of significant bleeding, or history of cardiovascular event(s), or a with CHA 2 DS 2 VASc ≥3 and HAS-BLED score ≥2). Patients will be randomized into a percutaneous LAA occlusion (group A) or a NOAC treatment (group B) in a 1:1 ratio; the randomization was done using Web-based randomization software. A total of 396 study participants (198 patients in each group) will be enrolled in the study. The primary end point will be the occurrence of any of the following events within 24months after randomization: stroke or transient ischemic attack (any type), systemic cardioembolic event, clinically significant bleeding, cardiovascular death, or a significant periprocedural or device-related complications., Conclusion: The PRAGUE-17 trial will determine if LAA occlusion is noninferior to treatment with NOAC in moderate- to high-risk AF patients., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)