No abstract

In this trial, LAA occlusion was noninferior to warfarin for ischemic stroke prevention or SE >7 days' post-procedure. Although noninferiority was not achieved for overall efficacy, event rates were low and numerically comparable in both arms. Procedural safety has significantly improved. This trial provides additional data that LAA occlusion is a reasonable alternative to warfarin therapy for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF who do not have an absolute contraindication to short-term warfarin therapy.

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00129545.

These 5-year outcomes of the PREVAIL trial, combined with the 5-year outcomes of the PROTECT AF trial, demonstrate that LAAC with Watchman provides stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation comparable to warfarin, with additional reductions in major bleeding, particularly hemorrhagic stroke, and mortality. (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation; NCT00129545; and Evaluation of the WATCHMAN LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy; NCT01182441).

In patients with NVAF at increased risk for stroke or bleeding who are candidates for chronic anticoagulation, LAAC resulted in improved rates of hemorrhagic stroke, cardiovascular/unexplained death, and nonprocedural bleeding compared to warfarin.

Background-The Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With AF (PROTECT AF)randomized trial compared left atrial appendage closure against warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with CHADS 2 Ն1. Although the study met the primary efficacy end point of being noninferior to warfarin therapy for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism/cardiovascular death, there was a significantly higher risk of complications, predominantly pericardial effusion and procedural stroke related to air embolism. Here, we report the influence of experience on the safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. Methods and Results-The study cohort for this analysis included patients in the PROTECT AF trial who underwent attempted device left atrial appendage closure (nϭ542 patients) and those from a subsequent nonrandomized registry of patients undergoing Watchman implantation (Continued Access Protocol [CAP] Registry; nϭ460 patients). The safety end point included bleeding-and procedure-related events (pericardial effusion, stroke, device embolization).There was a significant decline in the rate of procedure-or device-related safety events within 7 days of the procedure across the 2 studies, with 7.7% and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (Pϭ0.007), and between the first and second halves of PROTECT AF and CAP, with 10.0%, 5.5%, and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (Pϭ0.006). The rate of serious pericardial effusion within 7 days of implantation, which had made up Ͼ50% of the safety events in PROTECT AF, was lower in the CAP Registry (5.0% versus 2.2%, respectively; Pϭ0.019). There was a similar experience-related improvement in procedure-related stroke (0.9% versus 0%, respectively; Pϭ0.039). Finally, the functional impact of these safety events, as defined by significant disability or death, was statistically superior in the Watchman group compared with the warfarin group in PROTECT AF. This remained true whether significance was defined as a change in the modified Rankin score of Ն1, Ն2, or Ն3 (1.8 versus 4.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.82; 1.5 versus 3.7 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.82; and 1.4 versus 3.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.88, respectively). Conclusion-As

After left atrial appendage closure with Watchman, DRT (≈3.7%) is not frequent but, when present, is associated with a higher rate of stroke and systemic embolism.

) was conducted to determine whether percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with a filter device (Watchman) was noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results-Patients (n=707) with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor (age >75 years, hypertension, heart failure, diabetes, or prior stroke/transient ischemic attack) were randomized to either the Watchman device (n=463) or continued warfarin (n=244) in a 2:1 ratio. After device implantation, warfarin was continued for ≈45 days, followed by clopidogrel for 4.5 months and lifelong aspirin. Study discontinuation rates were 15.3% (71/463) and 22.5% (55/244) for the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively. The time in therapeutic range for the warfarin group was 66%. The composite primary efficacy end point included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death, and the primary analysis was by intention to treat. After 1588 patient-years of follow-up (mean 2.3±1.1 years), the primary efficacy event rates were 3.0% and 4.3% (percent per 100 patient-years) in the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively (relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.44%-1.30% per year), which met the criteria for noninferiority (probability of noninferiority >0.999). There were more primary safety events in the Watchman group (5.5% per year; 95% confidence interval, 4.2%-7.1% per year) than in the control group (3.6% per year; 95% confidence interval, 2.2%-5.3% per year; relative risk, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-2.70). Conclusions-The "local" strategy of left atrial appendage closure is noninferior to "systemic" anticoagulation with warfarin. PROTECT AF has, for the first time, implicated the left atrial appendage in the pathogenesis of stroke in atrial fibrillation.