Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

This meta-analysis explored the safety and effectiveness of different anticoagulant regimens after left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).

Methods

Databases, such as PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, were searched to identify eligible studies according to the inclusion criteria. The incidences of events, including device-related thrombus (DRT) formation, stroke, systemic thromboembolism, bleeding, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality, were analyzed using R version 3.2.3.

Results

The screening retrieved 32 studies, including 36 study groups and 4,474 patients. The incidence of outcomes after LAAO was calculated via meta-analysis. In the subgroup analysis, the rates of DRT formation, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality were significantly different among different antithrombotic methods. Single antiplatelet therapy was associated with the highest rate of adverse events, followed by dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) carried lower rates of adverse events.

Conclusions

Anticoagulant therapy had better safety and efficacy than antiplatelet therapy. Thus, for patients with nonabsolute anticoagulant contraindications, anticoagulant therapy rather than DAPT should be actively selected. NOACs displayed potential for further development, and these treatments might represent alternatives to VKAs in the future.

Keywords

Left atrial appendage occlusion meta-analysis antithrombotic strategies device-related thrombus antiplatelet therapy oral anticoagulant vitamin K antagonist

Introduction

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinic practice. The most severe complication of AF is thromboembolism, especially ischemic stroke. Approximately 20% to 30% of strokes are directly caused by AF.¹ Oral anticoagulants (OACs) significantly reduce the incidence of stroke in patients with AF, but long-term anticoagulant therapy might be impeded by bleeding complications in patients with a high risk of bleeding, restricting the use of OACs.^2,3

Because 90% of blood clots in patients with nonvalvular AF originate from the left atrial appendage,^4,5 left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) was developed with the fundamental goal of completely sealing the left atrial appendage, thereby eliminating the primary source of emboli and avoiding the need for anticoagulant therapy through mechanical occlusion.^6,7 The 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines about AF explicitly stated that LAAO may be considered for patients with AF who have contraindications for OACs and a IIB indication.¹

With the development of LAAO, device-related thrombus (DRT) formation and embolic stroke after implantation of the occluder have attracted extensive attention.⁸ After the implantation of the left atrial appendage occluder, which is perceived as a foreign object by the human immune system, thrombosis might occur on the occluder surface before complete endothelialization of the occluder surface (typically 45 days), leading to thromboembolic events.⁹ Therefore, antithrombotic therapy is necessary in the early stage after occluder implantation, and anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet drugs should be administered in the early stages of LAAO.¹⁰

The current guidelines for postimplantation antithrombotic therapy are unclear because of the lack of supporting data and significant heterogeneity encountered in clinical practice.^7,11 LAAO is recommended as an alternative treatment strategy in patients with AF who are at high risk of stroke. Ideally, long-term anticoagulant therapy should not required in patients undergoing LAAO. However, if complicated antithrombotic management is needed after the operation, the original intent of improving the quality of life of patients via LAAO is lost. Although the mainstream recommendation is treatment with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for 45 days postsurgery, some individuals prefer dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT).¹¹ Therefore, the type of antithrombotic drugs to be used and whether long-term antithrombotic therapy is required are issues that require further investigation.

In the present study, the status of postoperative antithrombotic therapy for patients with nonvalvular AF was reviewed. Meta-analysis was used to explore the safety and efficacy of different anticoagulant regimens after LAAO to provide guidance for the development of appropriate anticoagulant regimens.

Methods

Search strategy

We conducted a literature search using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (February 1, 2020) to identify eligible studies using the keywords “left atrial appendage closure,” “anticoagulant,” and “thrombus.” We also manually searched the reference lists of relevant studies to identify additional publications. The retrieved citations were reviewed independently by two investigators (SL and JW), and any disagreements were solved via discussion. This meta-analysis has been registered on PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42020151460.

Selection criteria

The following inclusion criteria were applied for the eligible studies: 1) prospective or retrospective studies; 2) patients with nonvalvular AF who had undergone LAAO; 3) patients received distinct antithrombotic regimens after LAAO; and 4) the study described the safety and efficacy outcomes of patients undergoing prolonged antithrombotic therapy. The following studies were excluded: 1) studies with <10 subjects; 2) studies with missing data; and 3) case reports, review articles, guidelines, and cell and animal studies. To avoid publication bias, studies that were follow-ups of other included studies or sub-studies of the same cohorts were also excluded from this meta-analysis. When multiple publications from the same study population were found, data from the most inclusive report were used.

Data extraction

A standardized, prepiloted form was used to extract data from the included studies. The following study characteristics were extracted: year of publication, study design, number of patients, and clinical characteristics. The primary efficacy outcomes of this study were as follows: the incidence of DRT formation, systemic thromboembolism, and stroke (hemorrhagic and ischemic). The primary safety outcomes were bleeding (minor bleeding and major bleeding), cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. DRT was defined as an echo density on the device visible on transesophageal echocardiography. Bleeding events were classified as major (intracranial, retroperitoneal, intraspinal, intraocular, or pericardial hemorrhage; decrease of hemoglobin levels >2 g/dL; and transfusion of ≥2 units of packed red blood cells) and minor (other bleeding events). Cardiovascular death was defined as death caused by a disturbance of the cardiovascular system, and all-cause death was defined as death from any cause.

Quality assessment

The methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies were evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.¹² This index consists of 12 items, each scored on a scale of 0 to 2, including the evaluation purpose, design, data collection, and follow-up of the study. The maximum ideal score is 16 for noncomparative studies and 24 for comparative studies.

Statistical analysis

The effect estimates were extracted from each study in the form of events in dichotomous data and means or medians for continuous data. Then, the pooled proportion was calculated using the inverse arcsine variance weights. Because of the existence of extreme values, we transformed the proportion of each study using the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine method. The heterogeneity between the studies was analyzed using the I² statistic and the random–effects model. Funnel plots were generated to observe potential biases, and asymmetry was tested using Egger’s linear regression approach. Forest plots were generated to illustrate the relative effect size of the individual studies on each clinical outcome. The analysis was conducted using R version 3.2.3. P < 0.05 denoted statistical significance.

Results

Study selection

A total of 1065 studies were retrieved. After removing duplicates, 663 studies were subjected to further scanning. After reading the abstract and partial text of each study, unrelated studies, reviews, case reports, studies with unclear outcomes or incomplete data, and studies in which LAAO was combined with other surgeries were excluded. Finally, 32 studies^13–44 that satisfied the selection criteria were included in this meta-analysis (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Screening flowchart.

Characteristics of studies

Four studies^13,14,25,35 used two different antithrombotic regimens after LAAO. Therefore, each of these four studies was considered to include two research groups, and finally, 36 research groups were included in the analysis. The studies were published between 2011 and 2019, and the number of enrolled patients ranged 12 to 1019. These studies encompassed 4474 patients with nonvalvular AF (mean age, 74.38 ± 6.80 years). The mean CHA₂DS₂-VASC and HAS-BLED scores were 4.3 ± 1.5 and 3.1 ± 1.0, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the baseline characteristics of the patients in the included studies. The quality of all 32 nonrandomized controlled studies was evaluated, and the quality scores ranged from 8 to 18, indicating that the studies were of moderate quality. The postoperative antithrombotic regimen, follow-up duration, and clinical results are listed in Table 2. The definitions of these outcome events in each study were roughly similar, and the reported data were considered to be under the same definition.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of the studied patients.

Characteristics	Number
Total number of patients	4,474
Implantation success	4,364 (97.5%)
Age (mean ± SD), years	74.38 ± 8.17
Male	2,419 (62.4%)/3,876 (86.6%)*
Hypertension	3,118 (84.5%)/3,689 (82.5%)*
Diabetes mellitus	1,177 (31.1%)/3,790 (84.7%)*
Congestive heart failure	823 (26.2%)/3,136 (70.1%)*
Previous stroke/TIA	1,280 (35.6%)/3,597 (80.4%)*
Previous bleeding	2,048 (61.3%)/3,342 (74.7%)*
Mean CHA₂DS₂-VASC score (mean ± SD)	4.3 ± 1.5
Mean HAS-BLED score (mean ± SD)	3.1 ± 1.0

Data are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.

TIA: transient ischemic attack.

*Complications were not reported in all studies. Hence, the left side lists the number of patients with each complication and the percentage of all reported patients, and the right side lists the total number of reported patients with each complication and the percentage of all included patients.

Table 2.

Antithrombotic regimen and follow-up results of the studies.

Study	Antithrombotic regimen	Mean follow-up time	Number of patients	DRT	Systemic thromboembolism	Stroke/TIA	Minor bleeding	Major bleeding	Cardiovascular mortality	All-cause death
Gadiyaram 2019¹³	NOAC for 45 days, aspirin for life	12 months	75	0	NA	4	NA	NA	NA	NA
Cohen 2019¹⁴	NOAC	8 months	47	0	0	0	0	7	0	1
Cohen 2019¹⁴	VKA	8 months	43	0	0	1	0	2	0	2
Gadiyaram 2019¹³	VKA for 45 days, SAPT	12 months	82	0	NA	4	NA	NA	NA	NA
Jose 2019¹⁵	DAPT for 3–6 months, aspirin for 6–12 months	22.9 months	573	27	NA	26	35	43	NA	76
Chen 2019¹⁶	DAPT for 6 months, aspirin for life	6 months	139	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Bertrand 2019¹⁷	DAPT for 6 months, aspirin for life	21 months	39	1	0	0	3	4	2	7
Aonuma 2018¹⁸	VKA for 45 days, DAPT for 6 months, aspirin for life	24 months	42	2	0	1	3	1	0	0
Khalighi 2018¹⁹	VKA + aspirin for 45 days, DAPT for 6 months, aspirin for life	12 months	48	2	0	1	2	5	0	0
Pracon 2018²⁰	DAPT for 1 to 6 months, aspirin for life	12 months	99	7	1	1	NA	NA	0	6
Park 2018²¹	DAPT for 3 months, aspirin for life	12 months	60	0	0	1	3	0	0	2
Maksym 2018²²	DAPT for 3 months, aspirin for life	98 days	43	2	0	0	NA	0	0	2
Asmarats 2018²³	DAPT for 3 months, aspirin for life	Median, 6 months	119	5	0	2	NA	4	5	7
Barakat 2017²⁴	NOAC for 45 days, DAPT, aspirin for life	NA	37	0	0	0	3	0	0	0
Enomoto 2017²⁵	NOAC for 6 weeks	4 months	214	2	0	1	1	3	0	0
Enomoto 2017²⁵	VKA for 6 weeks	4 months	212	1	0	1	2	4	0	1
Huang 2017²⁶	VKA for 45 days, DAPT for 6 months, aspirin for life	12 months	100	2	0	1	0	1	0	0
Jalal 2017²⁷	SAPT	13 months	76	5	1	2	3	3	2	2
Guerios 2017²⁸	DAPT	346 days	90	2	1	2	0	2	0	3
Kleinecke 2017²⁹	DAPT for 3 months, aspirin 6 months	12 months	49	2	NA	3	4	4	3	7
Seeger 2017³⁰	DAPT for 3 months, aspirin for life	400 days	12	0	0	0	2	0	0	1
Rodriguez 2016³¹	SAPT	19 months	31	1	0	0	0	1	0	5
Freixa 2016³²	DAPT for 3.8 months, aspirin for life	13 months	1019	28	NA	18	NA	NA	0	45
Berti 2016³³	DAPT for 3 months, aspirin for life	30 months	110	0	0	3	NA	3	1	14
Seeger 2016³⁴	DAPT for 6 months or 3 months	400 days	101	2	NA	2	12	NA	NA	NA
Bosche 2015³⁵	NOAC	417 days	18	0	0	0	0	3	0	2
Bosche 2015³⁵	DAPT	417 days	27	0	0	0	0	3	3	5
Masson 2015³⁶	DAPT for 1 month, aspirin for life	3 months	36	0	0	NA	NA	1	1	2
Minguez 2015³⁷	DAPT for 3–6 months, aspirin for 6–12 months	22 months	158	13	NA	7	7	9	2	17
Kebernik 2015³⁸	DAPT for 6 months, aspirin for life	9 months	96	2	0	3	NA	1	1	9
Matsuo 2014³⁹	VKA for 45 days, DAPT for 6 months, aspirin for life	6 months	177	2	0	0	1	0	0	1
Wiebe 2014⁴⁰	DAPT for 3 months, aspirin for life	1.8 years	57	2	0	0	7	2	1	5
Nietlispach 2013⁴¹	DAPT for 1 to 6 months	Median, 32 months	152	3	14	2	9	4	2	15
Faustino 2013⁴²	DAPT for 1 month, aspirin for life	12 months	22	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Vivek 2013⁴³	DAPT for 6 months, aspirin for life	14.4 months	142	6	NA	4	1	0	3	9
Lam 2011⁴⁴	DAPT for 1 month, aspirin for life	12 months	19	0	0	0	NA	0	0	0

DRT, device-related thrombus; NA, not available, NOAC, new oral anticoagulant; VKA, vitamin K antagonist; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; SAPT, single antiplatelet therapy; TIA, transient ischemic attack.

Result of the meta-analysis

Via meta-analysis, we obtained the overall incidence of various endpoint events after LAAO. The heterogeneity among the 36 study groups for DRT was I² = 49%. The results illustrated that the pooled rate of DRT formation was 1.69% (1.02% to 2.48%). The meta-analysis of systemic thromboembolism consisted of 28 study groups, and the result of heterogeneity testing was I² = 38%. The pooled rate of systemic thromboembolism was 0.03% (0.00% to 0.39%). In total, 35 study groups were included in the analysis of stroke/transient ischemic attacks (TIA), and the result of heterogeneity testing was I² = 37%. The pooled rate of stroke/TIA was 1.18% (0.66% to 1.82%). There were 31 study groups for major bleeding, and the result of heterogeneity testing was I² = 72%. The pooled rate of major bleeding was 2.38% (1.21% to 3.83%). Twenty-six study groups were included in the analysis of minor bleeding, and the result of heterogeneity testing was I² = 76%. The pooled rate of minor bleeding was 2.32% (1.03% to 3.98%). There were 32 study groups in the analysis of cardiovascular mortality, and the result of heterogeneity testing was I² = 54%. The results demonstrated that the pooled rate of cardiovascular mortality was 0.27% (0.00% to 0.83%). The analysis of all-cause mortality included 32 study groups, and the result of heterogeneity testing was I² = 85%. The pooled rate of all-cause mortality was 4.27% (2.50% to 6.41%). Forest plots are presented in Figures 2–3.

Figure 2.

Forest plot of efficacy outcomes. (a) forest plot of major DRT, (b) forest plot of systemic thromboembolism, (c) forest plot of stroke/TIA.

Figure 3.

Forest plot of safety outcomes. (a) Forest plot of major bleeding, (b) forest plot of minor bleeding, (c) forest plot of cardiovascular mortality and (d) forest plot of all-cause mortality.

Subgroup analysis

We conducted subgroup analyses according to the different postoperative antithrombotic methods (Table 3). The antithrombotic regimens of the 36 study groups were divided into four categories according to the initial antithrombotic drugs: DAPT, new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), VKAs, and single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT). Then, the results for the four antithrombotic schemes were calculated. Regarding DRT, the rates of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality significantly differed among the treatments (P < 0.05). Specifically, SAPT was associated with the highest incidence of DRT events (5.38%), followed by DAPT (2.31%), VKAs (0.89%), and NOACs (0.07%). The incidence of all-cause death decreased in the order of SAPT > DAPT > NOACs > VKAs, whereas that of cardiovascular death decreased in the order of SAPT > DAPT > NOACs = VKAs. Although statistical differences were not detected, DAPT and SAPT were linked to higher rates of thromboembolism, stroke/TIA, and minor bleeding than NOACs and VKAs. Moreover, NOACs were associated with the highest incidence of major bleeding (5.05%).

Table 3.

Subgroup analysis of different antithrombotic methods.

Event	DAPT	NOAC	VKA	SAPT	P
DRT	2.31%(1.42%–3.35%)	0.07%(0.00%–0.98%)	0.89%(0.10%–2.16%)	5.38%(1.58%–10.82%)	0.0015
Systemic thromboembolism	0.14%(0.00%–1.10%)	0.00%(0.00%–0.18%)	0.00%(0.00%–0.19%)	0.63%(0.00%–3.71%)	0.2067
Stroke/TIA	1.47%(0.81%–2.26%)	0.52%(0.00%–2.65%)	1.06%(0.07%–2.79%)	1.39%(0.00%–5.07%)	0.7893
Minor bleeding	3.68%(1.56%–6.48%)	0.73%(0.00%–4.38%)	0.90%(0.01%–2.68%)	1.91%(0.00%–7.13%)	0.1669
Major bleeding	2.12%(0.77%–3.93%)	5.05%(0.00%–15.88%)	2.01%(0.18%–5.17%)	3.57%(0.55–8.35%)	0.7159
Cardiovascular mortality	0.73%(0.06-1.86%)	0.00%(0.00-0.18%)	0.00%(0.00%–0.19%)	1.39%(0.00%–5.07%)	0.0107
All-cause mortality	6.66%(4.41%–9.28%)	0.80%(0.00%–5.56%)	0.24%(0.00%–1.01%)	7.50%(0.00%–25.49%)	<0.0001

DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; NOAC, new oral anticoagulant; VKA, vitamin k antagonist; SAPT, single antiplatelet; DRT, device-related thrombus; TIA, transient ischemic attack.

Heterogeneity analysis

Meta-regression analysis was performed on the outcome indicators of major bleeding, minor bleeding, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality to assess their high heterogeneity. We analyzed the influence of publication year, sample size, and literature quality on heterogeneity. The difference in sample size was identified as a source of heterogeneity for major bleeding and cardiovascular mortality (P < 0.05), the quality of the literature was identified as a source of heterogeneity for minor bleeding (P < 0.05), whereas none of the three factors was a source of heterogeneity for all-cause mortality.

Publication bias

Regarding publication bias tested using funnel plots and Egger’s test, there was no significant difference in the outcomes of DRT formation, systemic thromboembolism, stroke/TIA, minor/major bleeding, and all-cause mortality, as indicated by the statistically symmetrical funnel plots. However, Egger’s test revealed bias in the outcome of cardiovascular mortality (P < 0.001; Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Funnel plot of cardiovascular mortality.

Discussion

This study used meta-analysis to study the incidence of postoperative complications after LAAO and the effects of the antithrombotic regimen. According to our meta-analysis, the incidence of postoperative adverse events for LAAO was as follows: DRT, 1.69%; systemic thromboembolism, 0.03%; stroke/TIA, 1.18%; major bleeding, 2.38%; minor bleeding, 2.32%; cardiovascular mortality, 0.27%; and all-cause mortality, 4.27%. The pooled incidence of adverse events after LAAO surgery was similar to that reported in previous large studies.⁴⁵

Presently, the antithrombotic regimens after LAAO surgery are as follows: (a) OAC therapy for 45 days after surgery, DAPT after confirmed successful blockade, and lifelong aspirin monotherapy; (b) DAPT for 3 to 6 months after surgery and then long-term aspirin use; (c) NOACs; and (d) aspirin alone. The PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL trials, two large multicenter randomized controlled studies, primarily compared the efficacy and safety of LAAO to oral warfarin in preventing stroke in patients with AF.^46–48 In these two trials, warfarin (+/− aspirin) was administered for 45 days after surgery, followed by DAPT for 6 months and then aspirin. The results illustrated that although a risk of bleeding was plausible in the early stage, regimen (a) was feasible in the high-risk population without anticoagulant contraindications. According to these two studies, regimen (a) was widely adopted.⁴⁹ However, the PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL groups did not include patients with contraindications against coagulation, and LAAO is indicated for patients with a high risk of bleeding from OACs.⁵⁰ Thus, it was unclear whether antiplatelet therapy could prevent DRT formation.

The subsequent ASAP registry study was the first prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study of patients with nonvalvular AF with warfarin contraindications.⁴³ The study enrolled 150 patients after 6 months of postoperative DAPT followed by long-term aspirin use. During follow-up, six (4%) patients developed DRTs; among them, only one patient experienced ischemic stroke on day 341. Based on the results of ASAP, the antiplatelet drug regimen was found to be applicable in several other single-arm registry studies, and the incidences of ischemic stroke and thrombus formation on the device surface were both low during the follow-up period.

In the current analysis, in addition to major bleeding events, antiplatelet regimens (SAPT and DAPT) were linked to higher rates of adverse events than anticoagulant regimens. In particular, significantly lower rates of DRT formation, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death were noted for NOACs and VKAs. We concluded that the efficacy of anticoagulant therapy is significantly better than that of antiplatelet therapy, and the safety of anticoagulant therapy was not inferior to that of antiplatelet therapy. Therefore, we speculated that antiplatelet therapy could not replace anticoagulant therapy. Another paper matched and compared patients treated with anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy in various large studies, reaching the same conclusion.⁵¹

In some studies, patients were divided into nonanticoagulant contraindication and anticoagulant contraindication groups, and regimens (a) and (b), respectively, were recommended for these groups.⁵² In fact, there are patients with relative contraindications for anticoagulant rather than absolute contraindications, such as previous bleeding and poor international normalized ratios. If these patients were classified as having contraindications for anticoagulants and preferences for antiplatelet therapy, then the effectiveness of antithrombotic therapy might be reduced. Some studies suggested that the risk of DRT formation after LAAO could be assessed using the platelet count, ejection fraction, CHA₂DS₂-VASC score, echocardiographic features, and occlusion conditions.^53,54 It is also reported that old age and previous history of ischemic stroke are predictors of DRT formation.⁵⁵ Thus, we speculated that patients’ ability to receive anticoagulant therapy should be carefully evaluated; however, no patient should be forced to receive DAPT. For relatively contraindicated patients with an acceptable risk of bleeding, at least 45 days of anticoagulant therapy is recommended.

Finally, according to current data, although NOACs were linked to the highest incidence of major bleeding, these drugs were associated with lower rates of DRT formation, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death than the other regimens, and they carried similar risks of embolism and stroke. These observations were similar to those at a 3-month follow-up in the EWOLUTION study.⁵⁶ In addition, Bösche et al.³⁵ and Enomoto et al.²⁵ compared the safety and efficacy of NOACs to DAPT and warfarin, respectively, after LAAO, finding that NOAC treatment was safe and effective. Thus, it could be deduced that NOACs have a critical role as antithrombotic therapies after LAAO, but this finding must be substantiated in larger clinical trials.⁵⁷

Study limitations

The majority of the articles included in this meta-analysis were single-arm studies. Conversely, few randomized controlled trials were identified, and the level of evidence was not high. The number of studies including different antithrombotic schemes varied greatly, and only two studies assessed SAPT. Furthermore, the present study analyzed the efficacy and safety of various antithrombotic regimens, but it did not distinguish the plausible effects of different types of sealers on postoperative adverse events. In addition, heterogeneity was analyzed in this study. The sample size and study quality explained some of the heterogeneity, but no source of heterogeneity was identified for all-cause mortality. We detected publication bias for cardiovascular mortality outcomes, which may have been attributable to incomplete and inaccurate outcome reporting in some of the lower-quality studies.

Conclusion

Although most patients globally receive DAPT after LAAO surgery, the results of this meta-analysis indicated that anticoagulant therapy is associated with better safety and efficacy than antiplatelet therapy. Concerning patients with nonabsolute anticoagulant contraindications, anticoagulant therapy should be selected. In addition, NOACs have satisfactory development potential, and they may serve as alternatives to VKAs in the future.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Nanjing Medical Science and Technology Development Fund (QRX17060) and Jiangsu Pharmaceutical Association Shire Biopharmaceutical Fund (S201606).

ORCID iDs

Shu-yue Li

Hang Xu

References

Kirchhof

Benussi

Kotecha

, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 2893–2962.

Chow

DHF

Wong

Park

, et al. An overview of current and emerging devices for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. Trends Cardiovasc Med 2019; 29: 228–236.

Turagam

Parikh

Afzal

, et al. Replacing warfarin with a novel oral anticoagulant: Risk of recurrent bleeding and stroke in patients with warfarin ineligible or failure in patients with atrial fibrillation (The ROAR study). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2017; 28: 853–861.

Holmes

Jr Alkhouli

Reddy

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion for The Unmet Clinical Needs of Stroke Prevention in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

Mayo Clin Proc 2019; 94: 864–874.

John Camm

Colombo

Corbucci

, et al. Left atrial appendage closure: a new technique for clinical practice. Heart Rhythm 2014; 11: 514–521.

Sahiner

Coteli

Kaya

, et al. Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Patients With Thrombus in Left Atrial Appendage. J Invasive Cardiol 2020; 32: 222–227.

Turagam

Velagapudi

Kar

, et al. Cardiovascular Therapies Targeting Left Atrial Appendage. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72: 448–463.

Busu

Khan

Alhajji

, et al. Observed versus Expected Ischemic and Bleeding Events Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion. Am J Cardiol 2020; 125: 1644–1650.

Price

MJ.

Device-Related Thrombus After Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12: 1015–1017.

10.

Mahajan

Brooks

Sullivan

, et al. Importance of the underlying substrate in determining thrombus location in atrial fibrillation: implications for left atrial appendage closure. Heart 2012; 98: 1120–1126.

11.

Saw

Nielsen-Kudsk

Bergmann

, et al. Antithrombotic Therapy and Device-Related Thrombosis Following Endovascular Left Atrial Appendage Closure. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12: 1067–1076.

12.

Slim

Nini

Forestier

, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73: 712–716.

13.

Gadiyaram

Mohanty

Gianni

, et al. Thromboembolic events and need for anticoagulation therapy following left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with electrical isolation of the appendage. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2019; 30: 511–516.

14.

Cohen

Heist

Galvin

, et al. A comparison of postprocedural anticoagulation in high-risk patients undergoing WATCHMAN device implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2019; 42: 1304–1309.

15.

Lopez-Minguez

Nogales-Asensio

Infante De Oliveira

, et al. Long-term Event Reduction After Left Atrial Appendage Closure. Results of the Iberian Registry II. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 2019; 72: 449–455.

16.

Chen

Schmidt

Bordignon

, et al. Feasibility of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using a novel LAmbre occluder in patients with atrial fibrillation: Initial results from a prospective cohort registry study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2018; 29: 291–297.

17.

Bertrand

Habran

Kenis

, et al. Dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: single center experience with the Amplatzer Cardiac plug. Acta Cardiol 2019; 74: 74–81.

18.

Aonuma

Yamasaki

Nakamura

, et al. Percutaneous WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Japanese Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation at Increased Risk of Thromboembolism – First Results From the SALUTE Trial. Circ J 2018; 82: 2946–2953.

19.

Khalighi

Sharma

Masih

, et al. Postapproval Community Hospital Experience in the United States with Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device (Watchman). J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2018; 27: 2538–2542.

20.

Pracon

Bangalore

Dzielinska

, et al. Device Thrombosis After Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Is Related to Patient and Procedural Characteristics but Not to Duration of Postimplantation Dual Antiplatelet Therapy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11: e005997.

21.

Park

Sievert

Kleinecke

, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion with lambre in atrial fibrillation: Initial European experience. Int J Cardiol 2018; 265: 97–102.

22.

Maksym

Mazurek

Kochman

, et al. Dual antiplatelet therapy is safe and efficient after left atrial appendage closure. Kardiol Pol 2018; 76: 459–463.

23.

Asmarats

Masson

Pagnotta

, et al. Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure With the Ultraseal Device Insights From the Initial Multicenter Experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11: 1932–1941.

24.

Barakat

Wazni

Saliba

, et al. Initial Experience With Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Short-Term Anticoagulation After Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2017; 3: 1472–1473.

25.

Enomoto

Gadiyaram

Gianni

, et al. Use of non-warfarin oral anticoagulants instead of warfarin during left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device. Heart Rhythm 2017; 14: 19–24.

26.

Huang

Zhang

, et al. Efficacy and Safety of the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Stroke Prevention in Chinese Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Single-center, Prospective, Observational Study. Chin Med J (Engl) 2017; 130: 434–438.

27.

Jalal

Dinet

Combes

, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure followed by single antiplatelet therapy: Short- and mid-term outcomes. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2017; 110: 242–249.

28.

Guerios

Chamie

Montenegro

, et al. First results of the Brazilian Registry of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure. Arq Bras Cardiol 2017; 109: 440–447.

29.

Kleinecke

Park

Godde

, et al. Twelve-month follow-up of left atrial appendage occlusion with Amplatzer Amulet. Cardiol J 2017; 24: 131–138.

30.

Seeger

Birkemeyer

Rottbauer

, et al. First experience with the Watchman FLX occluder for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2017; 18: 512–516.

31.

Rodriguez-Gabella

Nombela-Franco

Regueiro

, et al. Single Antiplatelet Therapy Following Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Patients With Contraindication to Anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68: 1920–1921.

32.

Freixa

Llull

Gafoor

, et al. Characterization of Cerebrovascular Events After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion. Am J Cardiol 2016; 118: 1836–1841.

33.

Berti

Pastormerlo

Rezzaghi

, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion in high-risk patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Heart 2016; 102: 1969–1973.

34.

Seeger

Bothner

Dahme

, et al. Efficacy and safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure to prevent thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation patients with high stroke and bleeding risk. Clin Res Cardiol 2016; 105: 225–229.

35.

Bosche

Afshari

Schone

, et al. Initial Experience With Novel Oral Anticoagulants During the First 45 Days After Left Atrial Appendage Closure With the Watchman Device. Clin Cardiol 2015; 38: 720–724.

36.

Masson

Kouz

Riahi

, et al. Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Closure Using Intracardiac Echocardiographic Guidance From the Left Atrium. Can J Cardiol 2015; 31: 1497.e7–1497.e14.

37.

Minguez

JRL

Asensio

JMN

Gragera

, et al. Two-year clinical outcome from the Iberian registry patients after left atrial appendage closure. Heart 2015; 101: 877–883.

38.

Kebernik

Jose

Abdel-Wahab

, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Left Atrial Appendage Closure with the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug in Very High Stroke and Bleeding Risk Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation. Cardiol Ther 2015; 4: 167–177.

39.

Matsuo

Sandri

Mangner

, et al. Interventional closure of the left atrial appendage for stroke prevention. Circ J 2014; 78: 619–624.

40.

Wiebe

Bertog

Franke

, et al. Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with the Amplatzer cardiac plug in patients with atrial fibrillation and contraindications to anticoagulation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 83: 796–802.

41.

Nietlispach

Gloekler

Krause

, et al. Amplatzer Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Single Center 10-Year Experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 82: 283–289.

42.

Faustino

Paiva

Providencia

, et al. Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage for prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation for patients with contraindication to or failure of oral anticoagulation: A single-center experience. Rev Port Cardiol 2013; 32: 461–471.

43.

Reddy

Mobius-Winkler

Miller

, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device in patients with a contraindication for oral anticoagulation: the ASAP study (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology). J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61: 2551–2556.

44.

Lam

Yip

Yan

, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with amplatzer cardiac plug for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: Initial asia-pacific experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 78: S173.

45.

Hernandez

Urso

Tena

, et al. Percutaneous left appendage closure: a systematic review of safety and efficacy events. Cirugia Cardiovascular 2017; (no pagination).

46.

Holmes

Jr Kar

Price

, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64: 1–12.

47.

Main

Fan

Reddy

, et al. Assessment of Device-Related Thrombus and Associated Clinical Outcomes With the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (from the PROTECT-AF Trial). Am J Cardiol 2016; 117: 1127–1134.

48.

Reddy

Sievert

Halperin

, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014; 312: 1988–1998.

49.

Chen

Weise

Chun

KRJ

, et al. Antithrombotic strategies after interventional left atrial appendage closure: an update. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2018; 16: 675–678.

50.

Schmidt

Chun

KR.

Antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage closure.

Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2015; 13: 105–109.

51.

Sondergaard

Wong

Reddy

, et al. Propensity-Matched Comparison of Oral Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Closure With WATCHMAN. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12: 1055–1063.

52.

Nishimura

Sab

Reeves

, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in atrial fibrillation patients with a contraindication to oral anticoagulation: a focused review. Europace 2018; 20: 1412–1419.

53.

Rodes-Cabau

O'Hara

Paradis

, et al. Changes in Coagulation and Platelet Activation Markers Following Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Closure. Am J Cardiol 2017; 120: 87–91.

54.

Garot

Cormier

Horvilleur

Device-Related Thrombus After Left Atrial Appendage Closure.

Interv Cardiol 2019; 14: 42–44.

55.

Lempereur

Aminian

Freixa

, et al. Device-associated thrombus formation after left atrial appendage occlusion: A systematic review of events reported with the Watchman, the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug and the Amulet. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 90: E111–E121.

56.

Bergmann

Betts

Sievert

, et al. Safety and efficacy of early anticoagulation drug regimens after WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure: three-month data from the EWOLUTION prospective, multicentre, monitored international WATCHMAN LAA closure registry. EuroIntervention 2017; 13: 877–884.

57.

Qiao

Hao

, et al. Initial anticoagulation experience with standard-dose rivaroxaban after Watchman left atrial appendage occlusion. Ann Transl Med 2020; 8: 105.

Meta-analysis of postoperative antithrombotic therapy after left atrial appendage occlusion

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Search strategy

Selection criteria

Data extraction

Quality assessment

Statistical analysis

Results

Study selection

Characteristics of studies

Result of the meta-analysis

Subgroup analysis

Heterogeneity analysis

Publication bias

Discussion

Study limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

Funding

ORCID iDs

References