Background: The effects of left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion compared to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remain unknown.
Aims: We aimed to evaluate the outcomes in patients with AF who received LAA occlusion vs. NOAC therapy.
Methods: We utilised data from TriNetX which is a global federated health research network currently containing data for 88.5 million patients. ICD-10 codes were employed to identify AF patients treated with either LAA occlusion or NOAC between 1st December 2010 and 17th January 2019. Clinical outcomes of interest were analysed up to 2 years.
Results: 108,697 patients were included. Patients who underwent LAA occlusion were younger, more likely to be white Caucasian and male, had a greater incidence of comorbidities, and were less likely to be prescribed other cardiovascular medications. Using propensity score matching, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly lower among patients who received LAA occlusion compared to NOAC therapy [1.51% vs. 5.60%, RR 0.27 (95% CI 0.14-0.54)], but there were no statistical differences in the composite thrombotic or thromboembolic events [8.17% vs. 7.72%, RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.73-1.53)], ischaemic stroke or TIA [4.69% vs. 5.45%, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.54-1.38)], venous thromboembolism [1.66% vs. 1.51%, RR 1.10 (95% CI 0.47-2.57)] and intracranial haemorrhage [1.51% vs. 1.51%, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.42-2.39)].
Conclusion: Overall, LAA occlusion might be a suitable alternative to NOAC therapy for stroke prevention in patients with AF.
Keywords: All-cause mortality; Atrial fibrillation; Left atrial appendage occlusion; Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant; Outcome; Thromboembolism.
© 2022. The Author(s).