New England Journal of Medicine · 2026 · 15 citations · 21 references
MedicineCardiologySurgeryCardiovascular PharmacotherapyHemostasisInterventional CardiologyAnticoagulant TherapyAnticoagulation TherapyAntithrombotic TherapyAtrial FibrillationLeft Atrial Appendage ClosureThrombosisLeft Atrial Appendage Occlusion DevicesLeft Atrial Appendage ThrombosisLong-term AnticoagulationPercutaneous Left Atrial Appendage ClosurePrimary Efficacy EndpointsSurgical Left Atrial Appendage ClosureSystemic AnticoagulationVitamin K Antagonist Therapy
BACKGROUND: For patients with atrial fibrillation, the use of oral anticoagulant therapy to prevent stroke is limited by the risk of bleeding. Left atrial appendage closure is considered for patients who are unsuitable candidates for long-term anticoagulation, but its role in patients who are eligible for anticoagulants has not been established. METHODS: In this ongoing, prospective, international, randomized trial involving patients with atrial fibrillation who were suitable candidates for anticoagulation, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive either device-based left atrial appendage closure (device group) or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy (anticoagulation group). The primary efficacy end point - a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, or systemic embolism - was tested for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 4.8 percentage points) after 3 years of follow-up. The primary safety end point, non-procedure-related bleeding, was tested for superiority. RESULTS: -VASc score was 3.5±1.3. At 3 years, a primary efficacy end-point event had occurred in 81 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 5.7%) in the device group and in 65 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 4.8%) in the anticoagulation group (difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.8 to 2.6; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Non-procedure-related bleeding occurred in 154 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 10.9%) in the device group and in 260 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 19.0%) in the anticoagulation group (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.67; P<0.001 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atrial fibrillation who were candidates for anticoagulation, device-based left atrial appendage closure was noninferior to NOAC therapy with respect to a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, or systemic embolism and was superior to NOAC therapy for non-procedure-related bleeding at 3 years. (Funded by Boston Scientific; CHAMPION-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04394546.).
21
Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
Christopher B. Granger, John H. Alexander, John J.V. McMurray et al. · New England Journal of Medicine · 2011 · 8.9K citations · Full text
David R. Holmes, Saibal Kar, Matthew J. Price et al. · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2014 · 1.8K citations
5-Year Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure
Vivek Y. Reddy, Shephal K. Doshi, Saibal Kar et al. · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2017 · 991 citations · Full text
Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation
Vivek Y. Reddy, Horst Sievert, Jonathan L. Halperin et al. · JAMA · 2014 · 982 citations