Postprocedural Management: Anticoagulation and Beyond

Excluding the left atrial appendage in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is a mechanical way to decrease stroke risk. During endothelialization, the closure device is exposed to circulating blood, which might activate the coagulation cascade. In excessive proportions, possibly resulting in the development of device-related thrombus, requiring a bridging period with optimal antithrombotic treatment. Initial protocol treatment is less suitable for patients with contraindications to anticoagulation. Less intensive antithrombotic regimens investigated suggest safety and efficacy, however further research is required. A tailored treatment, considering bleeding and thromboembolic risk based on patient/procedural characteristics in every patient, is probably the best approach

The WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure device for patients with atrial fibrillation: current status and future perspectives

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke. Stroke prevention with oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended in AF patients at increased risk of stroke. The left atrial appendage (LAA) is the main source of thrombus formation in AF patients. The WATCHMAN percutaneous LAA closure (LAAC) device may serve as an alternative to OAC overcoming disadvantages including the risk of (major) bleeding. Areas covered: This review will focus on LAAC with the Watchman device for stroke prevention in AF patients. Current status, available literature, clinical safety and efficacy will be summarized. Furthermore, the future perspectives of Watchman will be discussed. Expert opinion: LAAC with Watchman appears a promising, safe, and effective alternative to OAC. Ongoing and future studies to consolidate the position of Watchman should focus on comparative safety and efficacy of different LAAC devices, patient selection, various post-procedural antithrombotic regimens, head-to-head comparisons with NOAC, better understanding of device-related thrombus, and the role of the LAA in the propagation of non-valvular AF. This research may attribute to a paradigm shift in which LAAC no longer serves as a ’last resort’ treatment for AF patients ineligible for OAC but may serve as a second-line or even first-line treatment option for AF patients

Hemostatic biomarkers and antithrombotic strategy in percutaneous left atrial interventions:State-of-the-art review

Atrial septal defect, persistent foramen ovale and the left atrial appendage are nowadays often percutaneously closed with implantable devices. These interventions may be complicated by thromboembolic events and the perfect post-procedural antithrombotic management is still under investigation. The mechanisms leading to left atrial device-related thrombus and thromboembolic complications are not fully understood. Biomarkers of coagulation activation are elevated following percutaneous device placement, peaking within one month and returning to baseline values after three months. By contrast, platelet reactivity shows no post-procedural increase. This suggests that an optimal antithrombotic regimen should perhaps include (oral) anticoagulation therapy rather than the currently more frequently prescribed antiplatelet-based regimen. Furthermore, biomarkers of endothelial activation, fibrinolysis, and on-treatment platelet reactivity may be of value in predicting device-related thrombus and bleeding and guide future medical strategy, facilitating personalized medicine

Prehospital Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Real-World Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Referred for Primary PCI: Procedural and 30-Day Outcomes

OBJECTIVES: Pretreatment with P2Y12 inhibitors before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) can reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. We investigated differences in coronary reperfusion and clinical outcomes between prehospital administration of prasugrel vs ticagrelor in a historical cohort analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 533 STEMI patients, directly referred by the ambulance for PPCI, and pretreated with either prasugrel (2013-2014) or ticagrelor (2015-2016). The primary outcome measurement was coronary and myocardial reperfusion prior to and after intervention. Secondary outcome measurements included MACE and stent thrombosis (ST) at 30 days. The median time from first medical contact to balloon was 82 minutes. There was no significant difference in preprocedural and postprocedural coronary reperfusion (TIMI flow grade 3) and postprocedural ST-segment elevation resolution between the prasugrel and ticagrelor groups. No significant differences in MACE and ST rates were found between the groups. No fatal or intracranial bleedings were reported up to 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital administration of both prasugrel and ticagrelor in STEMI patients is safe, without differences in preprocedural and postprocedural reperfusion and short-term clinical outcomes

Efficacy and safety of the GOLD FORCE multicentre randomized clinical trial: Multielectrode phased radiofrequency vs. irrigated radiofrequency single-tip catheter with contact force ablation for treatment of symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Aims: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has become increasingly safe and effective with the evolution of single-tip ablation catheters aided by contact force sensing (ST-CF) and single-shot devices such as the second-generation pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC) Gold multi-electrode array. The multicentre randomized GOLD FORCE trial was conducted to evaluate non-inferiority of safety and efficacy of PVAC Gold PVI compared to ST-CF ablation for paroxysmal AF. Methods and results: The primary efficacy endpoint documented AF recurrence ≥30 s was assessed by time-to-first-event analysis after a 90-day blanking period using repeated 7-day Holters. Secondary endpoints include acute success and procedural characteristics. Safety endpoints included procedural complications, stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), tamponade, bleeding, and access site complications. Two hundred and eight patients underwent randomization and PVI (103 assigned to PVAC Gold, 105 to ST-CF). Acute success rates were 95% and 97% for PVAC Gold and ST-CF, respectively. At 12 months, AF recurrence was observed in 46.6% of the PVAC Gold group and in 26.2% of the ST-CF group [absolute efficacy difference 20.4% (95% confidence interval, CI 7.5-33.2%), hazard ratio 2.05 (95% CI 1.28-3.29), P = 0.003]. PVAC Gold had significantly shorter procedure and ablation times. Complication rates were 5.7% and 4.9% for PVAC Gold and ST-CF, respectively (P = 0.782). Conclusion: In this multicentre randomized clinical trial, ablation with ST-CF and PVAC Gold ablation catheters non-inferiority for efficacy was not met. AF recurrence was significantly more frequent in the PVAC Gold group compared to single-tip contact force group. Both groups had similarly low rates of adverse events. PVAC Gold ablation had significantly shorter procedure and ablation times

COMPARE LAAO: Rationale and design of the randomized controlled trial "COMPARing Effectiveness and safety of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion to standard of care for atrial fibrillation patients at high stroke risk and ineligible

Background: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). In patients with a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC randomized controlled trial (RCT) data is lacking. Study objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of LAAO in AF patients who are ineligible to use OAC. The co-primary efficacy endpoint is (1) time to first occurrence of stroke (ischemic, hemorrhagic, or undetermined) and (2) time to first occurrence of the composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and systemic embolism (SE). The primary safety endpoint is the 30-day rate of peri-procedural complications. Study design: This is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE), superiority-driven RCT. Patients with AF, a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score ≥2 for men and ≥3 for women and a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC will be randomized in a 2:1 fashion to the device- or control arm. Patients in the device arm will undergo percutaneous LAAO and will receive post-procedural dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) per protocol, while those in the control arm will continue their current treatment consisting of no antithrombotic therapy or (D)APT as deemed appropriate by the primary responsible physician. In this endpoint-driven trial design, assuming a 50% lower stroke risk of LAAO compared to conservative treatment, 609 patients will be followed for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 years. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses will be performed to allow decision-making on reimbursement of LAAO for the target population in the Netherlands. The COMPARE LAAO trial will investigate the clinical superiority in preventing thromboembolic events and cost-effectiveness of LAAO in AF patients with a high thromboembolic risk and a contraindication for OAC use

COMPARE LAAO: Rationale and design of the randomized controlled trial “COMPARing Effectiveness and safety of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion to standard of care for atrial fibrillation patients at high stroke risk and ineligible to use oral anticoagulation therapy”

Background: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). In patients with a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC randomized controlled trial (RCT) data is lacking. Study objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of LAAO in AF patients who are ineligible to use OAC. The co-primary efficacy endpoint is (1) time to first occurrence of stroke (ischemic, hemorrhagic, or undetermined) and (2) time to first occurrence of the composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and systemic embolism (SE). The primary safety endpoint is the 30-day rate of peri-procedural complications. Study design: This is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE), superiority-driven RCT. Patients with AF, a CHA₂DS₂-VASc score ≥2 for men and ≥3 for women and a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC will be randomized in a 2:1 fashion to the device- or control arm. Patients in the device arm will undergo percutaneous LAAO and will receive post-procedural dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) per protocol, while those in the control arm will continue their current treatment consisting of no antithrombotic therapy or (D)APT as deemed appropriate by the primary responsible physician. In this endpoint-driven trial design, assuming a 50% lower stroke risk of LAAO compared to conservative treatment, 609 patients will be followed for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 years. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses will be performed to allow decision-making on reimbursement of LAAO for the target population in the Netherlands. The COMPARE LAAO trial will investigate the clinical superiority in preventing thromboembolic events and cost-effectiveness of LAAO in AF patients with a high thromboembolic risk and a contraindication for OAC use

Predictors of Device-Related Thrombus Following Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

International audienc