Left atrial appendage occlusion devices vs direct oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) are the first line anticoagulation for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as a new therapy and its safety and effectiveness compared with DOACs are still controversial.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies was conducted, focusing on patients with NVAF. Outcomes analyzed included: (1) all-cause mortality; (2) cardiovascular (CV) mortality; (3) thromboembolic events; (4) stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA); (5) bleeding events; and a (6) composite of death, hemorrhagic, and thromboembolic events. We performed a subgroup analysis of major bleeding according to different definitions: (1) Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC); (2) International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH); and (3) other definitions.

Results

Ten studies involving 18,507 patients were included, with 42.35 % undergoing LAAO. In pooled analysis, LAAO was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality (HR 0.63; 95 % CI 0.50-0.80), cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.56; 95 % CI 0.45-0.70), and of the composite outcome (HR 0.73; 95 % CI 0.58-0.92). A trend towards lower stroke/TIA events was observed but not statistically significant. Overall bleeding events did not significantly differ between groups; using the ISTH definition, LAAO showed significantly lower incidence of bleeding events (HR 0.63; 95 % CI 0.43-0.91). No difference was found in thromboembolic events.

Conclusion

LAAO was associated with a significantly lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, as well as the composite of death, hemorrhagic or thromboembolic events, as compared with DOACs.