Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE While effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), warfarin is limited by a narrow therapeutic profile, a need for lifelong coagulation monitoring, and multiple drug and diet interactions. OBJECTIVE To determine whether a local strategy of mechanical left atrial appendage (LAA) closure was noninferior to warfarin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS PROTECT AF was a multicenter, randomized (2:1), unblinded, Bayesian-designed study conducted at 59 hospitals of 707 patients with nonvalvular AF and at least 1 additional stroke risk factor (CHADS2 score ≥1). Enrollment occurred between February 2005 and June 2008 and included 4-year follow-up through October 2012. Noninferiority required a posterior probability greater than 97.5% and superiority a probability of 95% or greater; the noninferiority margin was a rate ratio of 2.0 comparing event rates between treatment groups. INTERVENTIONS Left atrial appendage closure with the device (n = 463) or warfarin (n = 244; target international normalized ratio, 2-3). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A composite efficacy end point including stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death, analyzed by intention-to-treat. RESULTS At a mean (SD) follow-up of 3.8 (1.7) years (2621 patient-years), there were 39 events among 463 patients (8.4%) in the device group for a primary event rate of 2.3 events per 100 patient-years, compared with 34 events among 244 patients (13.9%) for a primary event rate of 3.8 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin (rate ratio, 0.60; 95% credible interval, 0.41-1.05), meeting prespecified criteria for both noninferiority (posterior probability, >99.9%) and superiority (posterior probability, 96.0%). Patients in the device group demonstrated lower rates of both cardiovascular mortality (1.0 events per 100 patient-years for the device group [17/463 patients, 3.7%] vs 2.4 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin [22/244 patients, 9.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.75; P = .005) and all-cause mortality (3.2 events per 100 patient-years for the device group [57/466 patients, 12.3%] vs 4.8 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin [44/244 patients, 18.0%]; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE After 3.8 years of follow-up among patients with nonvalvular AF at elevated risk for stroke, percutaneous LAA closure met criteria for both noninferiority and superiority, compared with warfarin, for preventing the combined outcome of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death, as well as superiority for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00129545.

[1]  D. Packer,et al.  The PROTECT AF (WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic PROTECTion in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) trial. , 2006, American heart journal.

[2]  G. Breithardt,et al.  Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  H. Aberg Atrial fibrillation. I. A study of atrial thrombosis and systemic embolism in a necropsy material. , 2009, Acta medica Scandinavica.

[4]  J. Halperin,et al.  Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: an assessment of net clinical benefit. , 2012, European heart journal.

[5]  N. Ammash,et al.  Left atrial appendage thrombus is not uncommon in patients with acute atrial fibrillation and a recent embolic event: A transesophageal echocardiographics tudy , 1995 .

[6]  G. Schuler,et al.  Initial worldwide experience with the WATCHMAN left atrial appendage system for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[7]  Saibal Kar,et al.  Safety of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Results From the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With AF (PROTECT AF) Clinical Trial and the Continued Access Registry , 2011, Circulation.

[8]  J. Odell,et al.  Appendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillation. , 1996, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[9]  Leon Poller,et al.  Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Bernhard Meier,et al.  Left atrial appendage closure with Amplatzer cardiac plug in atrial fibrillation: initial European experience. , 2011, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[11]  N. Ammash,et al.  Left atrial appendage thrombus is not uncommon in patients with acute atrial fibrillation and a recent embolic event: a transesophageal echocardiographic study. , 1995, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  F R Rosendaal,et al.  A Method to Determine the Optimal Intensity of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy , 1993, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

[13]  David B. Dunson,et al.  Bayesian Data Analysis , 2010 .

[14]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  R. Stafford,et al.  National Trends in Oral Anticoagulant Use in the United States, 2007 to 2011 , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[16]  Donald R. Lynch Apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  C. Robinson-Cohen,et al.  The effect of anticoagulants on cancer risk and survival: systematic review. , 2007, Cancer treatment reviews.

[18]  G. Wander,et al.  Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for stroke prophylaxis in patients with atrial fibrillation 2.3-year follow-up of the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection In Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial. , 2013 .

[19]  F. McAlister,et al.  Why do patients with atrial fibrillation not receive warfarin? , 2000, Archives of internal medicine.

[20]  Jun Zhu,et al.  Apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  J. Ruskin,et al.  HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert Consensus Statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: recommendations for personnel, policy, procedures and follow-up. A report of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) Task Force on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. , 2007, Heart rhythm.

[22]  M. Aguilar,et al.  Meta-analysis: Antithrombotic Therapy to Prevent Stroke in Patients Who Have Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[23]  Petr Neuzil,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). , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[24]  M. Lesh,et al.  Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Transcatheter Occlusion to Prevent Stroke in High-Risk Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Early Clinical Experience , 2002, Circulation.

[25]  Salim Yusuf,et al.  Effect of clopidogrel added to aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  P. Neužil,et al.  Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Prophylaxis in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: 2.3-Year Follow-up of the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) Trial , 2013, Circulation.

[27]  A. Rabinstein Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a randomised non-inferiority trial , 2010 .

[28]  B. Gage,et al.  Use and Effectiveness of Warfarin in Medicare Beneficiaries With Atrial Fibrillation , 2006, Stroke.