Atrial Fibrillation Archives - Cardionerds: Recent Episodes

CardioNerds

A cardiology platform that aims to democratized cardiovascular education

View Details

CardioNerds Atrial Fibrillation Series Co-Chairs Dr. Colin Blumenthal (University of Pennsylvania Cardiology fellow) and Dr. Kelly Arps (Duke University Electrophysiology Fellow) join the 2023 atrial fibrillation guideline writing committee Chair Dr. José Joglar (UT Southwestern) and Vice Chair Dr. Mina Chung (Cleveland Clinic). They review the key takeaways from the 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation. Audio editing by CardioNerds academy intern, student doctor Pace Wetstein.

This podcast was developed in collaboration with the American Heart Association. For more on these guidelines, access the AHA Science News AF Guideline landing page.

Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.

CardioNerds Atrial Fibrillation Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

View Details

CardioNerds co-founder Dr. Amit Goyal, series co-chair Dr. Colin Blumenthal, and episode lead Dr. Anushka Tandon to discuss pharmacologic anticoagulation options in atrial fibrillation with Drs. Ashley Lochman and Chris Domenico. The case-based review helps clarify some key concepts, such as when warfarin is preferred for anticoagulation, who may be a good DOAC (direct-acting oral anticoagulant) candidate, how to choose an appropriate DOAC agent, and how to manage anticoagulation therapy in patients already on antiplatelet therapies. Notes were drafted by Dr. Anushka Tandon. The episode audio was edited by student Dr. Shivani Reddy.

This CardioNerds Atrial Fibrillation series is a multi-institutional collaboration made possible by contributions of stellar fellow leads and expert faculty from several programs, led by series co-chairs, Dr. Kelly Arps and Dr. Colin Blumenthal.

This episode was planned and recorded prior to the release of the 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation. Please refer to this guideline document for the most updated recommendations.

We have collaborated with VCU Health to provide CME. Claim free CME here!

This episode is made possible with support from Glass.Health – The first digital notebook designed for doctors. Follow @GlassHealthHQ for the latest product updates!

Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.

CardioNerds Atrial Fibrillation Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

Pearls and Quotes – Anticoagulation Pharmacology1. Avoid potentially fatal errors with this terminology tip for correctly referencing non-warfarin oral anticoagulant agents: it’s DOAC (like, please DO use AntiCoagulation), not NOAC (imagine someone interpreting that as “NO AntiCoagulation for this patient” at discharge – yikes)! 2. Sometimes, an oldie really is a goodie – warfarin is recommended over DOACs for patients with mechanical heart valves, moderate-to-severe mitral stenosis, anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome (APLS), left ventricular (LV) thrombus, higher INR goals, or DOAC failure. Patient preference and medication costs should also be considered – at the end of the day, “the best drug is the drug that a patient is willing to take!” 3. Standard-dose rivaroxaban or apixaban may be considered for use in patients weighing >120kg or with BMI >40; use of other DOACs should be limited to pts weighing =/< 120kg or with BMI =/< 40. 4. The pharmacists involved in this podcast promise they don’t have stock in apixaban! It just often happens to be the preferred DOAC option in certain scenarios – think patients with severe renal impairment (including ESRD) or with an increased risk for bleeding events (including older adults, those with a history of GI bleed, etc). 5. In general, dual therapy (DOAC or warfarin + P2Y12 inhibitor) is non-inferior to triple therapy (oral anticoagulant + P2Y12 inhibitor + aspirin) at preventing thrombotic events but is associated with a lower risk of bleeding events. Most patients can be transitioned to dual therapy after 7-30 days on triple therapy post-percutaneous coronary intervention. 6. What’s that on the horizon? Factor XI inhibitors may become the breakout stars of anticoagulation – multiple investigational agents are being studied for their potential to reduce thrombotic risk without significantly increasing bleeding risk in patients with indications for anticoagulation therapy…at least that’s the theorize hope. Watch this space!

Notes – Anticoagulation PharmacologyIn which cases is warfarin preferred over DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation?

  • Long-term anticoagulation with warfarin is indicated in patients with atrial fibrillation and either a mechanical valve or moderate-to-severe mitral stenosis (i.e., valvular atrial fibrillation as defined in the 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines on atrial fibrillation [1]). The REALIGN trial [2] showed increased rates of thromboembolic and bleeding complications with dabigatran vs. warfarin in patients with mechanical valves, and the PROACT Xa trial [3] found similarly higher rates of thromboembolic events with apixaban vs. warfarin in patients with On-X mechanical valves. However, DOACs are appropriate for use in patients with bioprosthetic valves.
  • Warfarin is preferred over DOACs in patients with APLS (antiphospholipid syndrome). In triple-positive patients, DOACs should absolutely be avoided (as supported by the TRAPS study [4], which was stopped early due to findings of increased thromboembolic events with rivaroxaban vs. warfarin). Warfarin should also be preferentially used in single- and double-positive patients as well (as suggested by findings from the ASTRO-APS study [5]).
  • There are some newer data to suggest apixaban may be non-inferior to warfarin in treating patients with LV thrombus; however, data overall is very mixed, and anticoagulating these patients with warfarin currently remains the preferred and more cautious approach.
  • Other situations in which warfarin may be preferred are when a higher INR goal or a customized anticoagulation approach is required, in instances of DOAC failure, or in cases where cost or patient preference are driving factors.

What patient-specific factors should be considered when deciding whether someone is a good candidate for DOAC therapy?

  • Weight/BMI: previous guidance suggested against the use of DOACs in pts weighing >120kg or with a BMI >40. However, ISTH updated their guidance in 2021 [6] to support using rivaroxaban and apixaban for VTE treatment or prevention “regardless of body weight and BMI”; these DOACs are often used in patients with obesity for non-VTE indications (e.g., thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation). Data to support this include a post-hoc analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial (apixaban in atrial fibrillation), which showed that patients weighing >120kg (~5% of the study population) had similar results to the overall study population. It’s important to use adjusted body weight when calculating CrCl to estimate renal function and determine DOAC dosing in obese patients. Other DOACs should be avoided in pts >120kg/with BMI >40 due to limited or unconvincing data at this time.
    • Hepatic impairment: DOACs have varying hepatic metabolism (apixaban is the most hepatically cleared and dabigatran the least), but limited data exist for DOAC dose adjustments in patients with hepatic impairment. DOACs should NOT be used in Child-Pugh Class C/severe hepatic disease, while rivaroxaban (and betrixaban)[GU1] should also NOT be used in moderate/CP Class B patients. DOACs should be avoided in patients with decompensated/unstable cirrhosis. Aside from these caveats, DOACs may be considered for use in mild-moderate (Class A/B) hepatic impairment (with exceptions as above).
    • Renal impairment: DOACs may be used in stable CKD with appropriate renal dose adjustments; DOAC therapies should be held in the context of AKI. Dabigatran is the most renally cleared and generally avoided for this reason. Apixaban is the least renally cleared and is generally the preferred agent in patients with renal impairment, including ESRD (in the context of which apixaban use is supported by data, including that from a 2022 cohort study [7] vs. warfarin).
    • Drug Interactions: rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran are all P-gp substrates that will be affected by P-gp inducers or inhibitors (e.g., dronedarone, amiodarone, digoxin, diltiazem, verapamil, antiepileptics, antifungals, chemotherapy agents, and St. John’s Wort). Rivaroxaban and apixaban are substrates of CYP450 enzymes, prominently 3A4, 3A5, and 2J2. Apixaban is also metabolized by 1A2 and 2C 8/9/19 to a lesser degree. Some DOACs may interact with atorvastatin or ticagrelor, but these interactions are not typically a barrier to concurrent therapy if clinically indicated. Running a drug interaction report or consulting a pharmacist to help evaluate and safely navigate drug interactions is extremely helpful in these scenarios.
    • *In addition to DOAC package inserts, the AHA guide to DOAC use [8] is a great resource that summarizes renal/hepatic dosing considerations, drug interactions, and anticoagulant transition recommendations.

What safety profile and bleeding risk considerations exist for warfarin versus DOACs?

  • Warfarin has been studied versus individual DOACs; generally, DOACs are preferred from a safety standpoint due to lower risk of bleeding. The RE-LY trial [9] showed no difference in major bleeding but less intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) with dabigatran when compared to warfarin. The ROCKET-AF [10] trial showed a greater Hgb drop/need for transfusion with rivaroxaban but higher critical/fatal bleeding (including ICH) incidence with warfarin. In the ARISTOTLE [11] trial, apixaban was associated with significantly lower bleeding outcomes than warfarin, except for GI bleeding (for which there was no significant difference between groups). Edoxaban had a lower incidence of overall GI bleed (upper and lower GI bleeding combined), but not individual upper or lower GI bleeding, than warfarin in the ENGAGE [12] trial.
    • There are no direct head-to-head trials comparing DOACs, though some data suggest apixaban is associated with a lower bleeding risk than rivaroxaban (no difference in ICH), and that rivaroxaban may be associated with a higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke.
    • In older adults, DOACs can be used without safety concerns over warfarin, though avoiding dabigatran may be suggested due to a signal for increased bleeding outcomes in older adult patients. The ELDERCARE-AF [13] trial from Japan showed no difference in major bleeding, but higher rates of GI bleeding and all bleeding, with edoxaban vs. placebo in adults >/= 80 years. Overall, apixaban is generally considered safe to use/the preferred DOAC option in patients with a history of GI bleeding.

What is the recommended anti-thrombotic approach for patients with indications for both antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation (for example, patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI)?

  • Assessing the appropriateness of dual vs. triple therapy involves balancing the risk of stent thrombosis vs. stroke risk.
  • Among P2Y12 inhibitors, clopidogrel is typically recommended over ticagrelor or prasugrel due to its lower incidence of bleeding events and because clopidogrel was also the most commonly used P2Y12 inhibitor in dual versus triple therapy trials.
  • The WOEST trial [14] found no increased thrombosis risk but a reduced bleeding risk in patients given dual therapy post-PCI with clopidogrel and warfarin vs. those given triple therapy with warfarin, clopidogrel, and aspirin. The REDUAL-PCI trial [15] found a similarly reduced bleeding risk without statistically increased thrombotic risk in patients receiving dual therapy with dabigatran + P2Y12i vs. continuing triple therapy with P2Y12i + aspirin + warfarin. The PIONEER-AF [16] trial found lower bleeding risk with rivaroxaban + P2Y12 therapy than with warfarin-DAPT triple therapy without differences in thrombotic outcomes; the caveat here is that the 15mg daily rivaroxaban dose used is not approved for stroke prevention (that dose is 20mg daily). The AUGUSTUS trial [17] showed dual apixaban + P2Y12i therapy to have lower bleeding risk and unchanged efficacy than VKA dual therapy or triple therapy with apixaban or VKA. Importantly, these trials were not powered to differentiate ischemic outcomes.
  • As for when patients should be transitioned from triple (OAC + P2Y12 + ASA) to dual therapy (OAC + P2Y12), data from medication-specific trials can help guide the approach. For patients anticoagulated with warfarin or dabigatran, a triple therapy duration of 30 days may be appropriate based on WOEST (up to 1 year) and REDUAL-PCI trials (up to 3 months for patients with a DES). In PIONEER-AF, patients were randomized directly to rivaroxaban + P2Y12 therapy without first receiving triple therapy, but in clinical practice, triple therapy is often instituted for 7-30 days before transitioning to dual therapy with rivaroxaban and P2Y12 inhibitor. For apixaban, a shorter 7-day course of triple therapy appears appropriate.
  • *The 2022 ACC ECDP is a fantastic reference resource to help guide the management of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation or VTE undergoing PCI or with ASCVD [18].

What’s the scoop on factor XI, which appears to be clinically important for thrombosis but not hemostasis, as a potential drug target? Might this be the future of anticoagulation pharmacotherapy?

  • Factor XI is a part of the contact pathway of coagulation. It is activated by thrombin and factor XIIa and is thought to activate factor IX. Factor XI appears to contribute to thrombin generation and thereby amplify thrombus growth; it may also reduce fibrin degradation. Higher levels of factor XI appear correlated to increased clotting risk, while factor XI levels are poorly correlated with bleeding risk. The excitement around factor XI as a drug target stems from the thought that XI inhibition may decrease thrombotic risk without significantly changing bleeding risk.
  • Currently, there are several drugs in development and multiple ongoing clinical trials examining therapeutic viability. Oral, intravenous, and subcutaneous formulations of factor XI inhibitors are all being studied, in forms including monoclonal antibodies, small molecules, and antisense oligonucleotides. Most data reported thus far relates to VTE prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. However, ongoing/planned trials, like the PACIFIC and OCEANIC series, will look at factor XI inhibitors in the context of atrial fibrillation, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Comparator drugs in these studies include DOACs and enoxaparin.
  • Long-term impact for this class of investigational therapeutics remains to be seen, and cost will likely be a limiting factor in using these agents (especially as DOACs are anticipated to go generic in 5-10 years). However, early data seems promising! [19, 20].

References – Anticoagulation Pharmacology1. January CT, Wann LS, Calkins H, et al. 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society in Collaboration With the Society of Thoracic Surgeons [published correction appears in Circulation. 2019 Aug 6;140(6):e285]. Circulation. 2019;140(2):e125-e151. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000665 2. Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Brueckmann M, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with mechanical heart valves. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(13):1206-1214. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1300615 3. Wang TY, Svensson LG, Wen J, et al. Apixaban or Warfarin in Patients with an On-X Mechanical Aortic Valve. NEJM Evid 2023;May 6:[Epub ahead of print]. doi:10.1056/EVIDoa2300067 4. Pengo V, Hoxha A, Andreoli L, et al. Trial of Rivaroxaban in AntiPhospholipid Syndrome (TRAPS): Two-year outcomes after the study closure. J Thromb Haemost. 2021;19(2):531-535. doi:10.1111/jth.15158 5. Woller SC, Stevens SM, Kaplan D, et al. Apixaban compared with warfarin to prevent thrombosis in thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome: a randomized trial. Blood Adv. 2022;6(6):1661-1670. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005808 6. Martin KA, Beyer-Westendorf J, Davidson BL, Huisman MV, Sandset PM, Moll S. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with obesity for treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism: Updated communication from the ISTH SSC Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation. J Thromb Haemost. 2021;19(8):1874-1882. doi:10.1111/jth.15358 7. Ellenbogen MI, Ardeshirrouhanifard S, Segal JB, Streiff MB, Deitelzweig SB, Brotman DJ. Safety and effectiveness of apixaban versus warfarin for acute venous thromboembolism in patients with end-stage kidney disease: A national cohort study. J Hosp Med. 2022;17(10):809-818. doi:10.1002/jhm.12926 8. Chen A, Stecker E, A Warden B. Direct Oral Anticoagulant Use: A Practical Guide to Common Clinical Challenges. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(13):e017559. doi:10.1161/JAHA.120.017559 9. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2010 Nov 4;363(19):1877]. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(12):1139-1151. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0905561 10. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(10):883-891. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1009638 11. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(11):981-992. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1107039 12. Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(22):2093-2104. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1310907 13. Okumura K, Akao M, Yoshida T, et al. Low-Dose Edoxaban in Very Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(18):1735-1745. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2012883 14. Dewilde WJ, Oirbans T, Verheugt FW, et al. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9872):1107-1115. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62177-1 15. Cannon CP, Bhatt DL, Oldgren J, et al. Dual Antithrombotic Therapy with Dabigatran after PCI in Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(16):1513-1524. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1708454 16. Gibson CM, Mehran R, Bode C, et al. Prevention of Bleeding in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing PCI. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(25):2423-2434. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1611594 17. Lopes RD, Heizer G, Aronson R, et al. Antithrombotic Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndrome or PCI in Atrial Fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(16):1509-1524. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1817083 18. Kumbhani D, Cannon C, Beavers C, et al. 2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation or Venous Thromboembolism Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Feb, 77 (5) 629–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.09.011 19. Nopp S, Kraemmer D, Ay C. Factor XI Inhibitors for Prevention and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism: A Review on the Rationale and Update on Current Evidence. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:903029. Published 2022 May 12. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.903029 20. Greco A, Laudani C, Spagnolo M, et al. Pharmacology and Clinical Development of Factor XI Inhibitors. Circulation. 2023;147(11):897-913. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.062353

View Details

Dr. Daniel Ambinder (CardioNerds Co-Founder), Dr. Kelly Arps (Series Co-Chair and EP fellow at Duke University), Dr. Stephanie Fuentes Rojas (FIT Lead and EP fellow at Houston Methodist), and Dr. Ingrid Hsiung (Cardiology Fellow at Baylor Scott & White Health) discuss situational assessment of stroke and bleeding risk with expert faculty Dr. Hafiza Khan (Electrophysiologist […]

View Details

CardioNerds Amit Goyal, Dr. Colin Blumenthal, Dr. Kelly Arps and Dr. Justice Oranefo discuss mechanical stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation with Dr. Christopher Ellis, cardiac electrophysiology lab director and director of the left atrial appendage closure program at Vanderbilt University. There has been a significant increase in the number of patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). This trend is expected to continue with current and upcoming clinical data on this topic. In this episode we dive into the rationale behind LAAO and explore several historical facts. We then proceed to the current state of practice including currently available options, appropriate indications, post op care, and potential complications. Notes were drafted by Dr. Justice Oranefo. Audio editing by CardioNerds Academy Intern, student doctor Chelsea Amo Tweneboah.

This CardioNerds Atrial Fibrillation series is a multi-institutional collaboration made possible by contributions of stellar fellow leads and expert faculty from several programs, led by series co-chairs, Dr. Kelly Arps and Dr. Colin Blumenthal.

This series is supported by an educational grant from the Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer Alliance. All CardioNerds content is planned, produced, and reviewed solely by CardioNerds.

We have collaborated with VCU Health to provide CME. Claim free CME here!

Disclosures: Dr. Ellis discloses grant or research support from Boston Scientific, Abbott-St Jude, advisor for Atricure and Medtronic.

Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.

CardioNerds Atrial Fibrillation Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

Pearls and Quotes – Atrial Fibrillation: Mechanical Stroke Prevention in Atrial fibrillation 1. Surgical or catheter based left atrial appendage occlusion results in mechanical exclusion of the left atrial appendage, which is the most common source of thrombus leading to embolic events in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. 2. Surgical LAAO should be considered in patients with atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2VASC score ≥ 2 undergoing cardiac surgery for other indications. 3. Endocardial LAAO devices such as WATCHMAN FLX and AMULET are approved for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation with a CHA2DS2VASC score ≥ 2 and have an appropriate reason to seek a non-drug alternative to anticoagulation therapy. 4. Appropriate patient selection and post-operative anticoagulation and imaging strategy are crucial for prevention and management of complications related to LAAO.

Notes – Atrial Fibrillation: Mechanical Stroke Prevention in Atrial fibrillation What are the types of LAAO device?

Left atrial appendage occlusion devices can be divided into epicardial closure and endocardial closure.

Epicardial techniques/devices include surgical ligation, Atriclip, and Lariat. These techniques require pericardial access (either by open thoracotomy or thoracoscopic access). The goals are complete exclusion and ischemic necrosis of the LAA.

LARIAT device

Atriclip device

Endocardial techniques include WATCHMAN FLX and AMULET devices. These techniques require the use of nitinol-based devices which are delivered into the LAA via a transeptal approach. These devices become endothelialized over time resulting in occlusion of the LAA.

AMULET device

WATCHMAN FLX

Who is the ideal candidate for surgical LAAO?

Several studies have evaluated the efficacy of surgical LAA occlusion. The most prominent being the LAOS III trial which randomized 4770 patients with atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2VASC ≥ 2 undergoing cardiac surgery for other reasons to surgical LAAO vs no LAAO (3,4). The primary outcome of ischemic stroke or systemic embolization occurred in 4.8% of patients in the LAAO group vs 7% of patients in control group over an average follow-up of 3.8 years. Though patients were randomized to LAAO, there was no requirement to stop anticoagulation and this difference was seen despite 75% of patients continuing anticoagulation. Additionally, there was no significant difference in operation time and bleeding complications.

Based on these findings, LAAO should be considered in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery for other reasons regardless of the anticipated anticoagulation strategy.

This ability to perform surgical LAAO requires safe access to the pericardial space. For this reason, conditions that create pericardial adhesions (e.g., prior cardiac surgery, chest radiation or trauma, multiple prior ablations) can limit the ability to perform surgical LAAO.

Who is the ideal candidate for endocardial LAAO?

Several randomized controlled trials and cohort studies have evaluated the utility of both the AMULET and WATCHMAN devices in stroke prevention with the most notable being the PREVAIL, PROTECT AF, and AMULET IDE trials (5,6,7,8,9,10).

Based on the available data, these devices are indicated for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation, a CHA2DS2VASC score ≥ 2 and an appropriate reason to seek a non-drug alternative to anticoagulation therapy. A classic example is a patient with recurrent GI bleeding despite multiple attempts to tolerate anticoagulation. These devices can also be considered in patients with high-risk professions suck as police officers or fire fighters.

Several individual factors also affect the feasibly of endocardial LAAO. A suitable LAA anatomy is necessary for safe device implant (13). Other important considerations are nickel allergy (consider formal allergy testing in patients with suspected nickel allergy), surgical repair of the atrial septum, and severe kyphoscolisis (making adequate transeptal access difficult).

There is no strong data comparing LAAO to DOAC in patients without high bleeding risk, however this question is being studied in 2 ongoing trials, CHAMPION AF (WATCHMAN FLX) and CATALYST (AMULET).

What are the complications of LAAO?

Surgical LAAO is safe and effective when there is complete occlusion of the LAA, however, historically ~ 20-30% are unsuccessful due to incomplete occlusion. More modern surgical techniques including confirmation with intra-operative transesophageal echocardiogram and the Atriclip have demonstrates a higher rate of success. Though the addition of a LAAO has not been shown to add significant time or risk to an already planned cardiac surgery, this requires a patient to already have an indication for surgery and carries the associated risks of that procedure.

Endocardial LAAO has the advantage of being minimally invasive, but procedural complications such as cardiac tamponade, bleeding, and stroke can occur. More recent data has shown a < 1% procedural risk with the WATCHMAN FLX device. Other post procedural complications of endocardial LAAO devices include peridevice leak (~ 10% incidence; leaks ≥ 3mm are associated with an increased risk of stroke) and device related thrombus (DRT; 2-3% incidence). Device embolism is rare but carries potentially devastating consequences (12).

What is the anticipated post operative care following LAAO?

Post operative care with surgical LAAO is predominently dictated by the primary indication for surgery. Due to the high incidence incomplete exclusion, an intra or post-operative TEE is necessary to document complete LAA occlusion. As for anticoagulation, there is no current randomized control trial data that supports using surgical LAAO as an alternative to AC. As previously discussed, a lower incidence of stroke was seen in the LAOS III trial, but this trial specifically studied using surgical LAAO as an adjunct to OAC, not as a replacement.

With endocardial LAAO, appropriate patient and device selection as well as adequate post-operative care is crucial to maximize safety and efficacy. Patients must be able to tolerate some degree of short-term anticoagulation with the goal to safely transition to single anti-platelet therapy while minimizing the risk of stroke and bleeding. This involves OAC for at least 45 days followed by aspirin monotherapy if no DRT or peridevice leak is seen on post-op imaging. DAPT (aspirin and clopidogrel) can be used instead of OAC in the early phase however there is not strong data for this strategy (11). Post-op imaging (TEE or CTA) is required approximately ~45 days, 6 months, and 1 year after the procedure.

In patients who have undergone LAAO, LAA imaging is recommended prior to cardioversion, however, in the absence of DRT or device leaks anticoagulation is not necessary post cardioversion (14,15).

References1. Belcher, J.R. & Somerville, W., 1955. Systemic Embolism and Left Auricular Thrombosis in Relation to Mitral Valvotomy. British Medical Journal, 2(4946), pp.1000–1003. 2. Blackshear, J.L. & Odell, J.A., 1996. Appendage obliteration to reduce stroke in cardiac surgical patients with atrial fibrillation. The Annals of thoracic surgery, 61(2), pp.755–759. 3. Friedman, D.J. et al., 2018. Association Between Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion and Readmission for Thromboembolism Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Concomitant Cardiac Surgery. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 319(4), pp.365–374. 4. Whitlock, R.P. et al., 2021. Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion during Cardiac Surgery to Prevent Stroke. The New England journal of medicine, 384(22), pp.2081–2091. 5. Reddy, V.Y. et al., 2014. Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 312(19), pp.1988–1998. 6. Belgaid, D.R. et al., 2016. Prospective randomized evaluation of the watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: The PREVAIL trial. International journal of cardiology, 219, pp.177–179. 7. Freeman, J.V. et al., 2020. The NCDR Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 75(13), pp.1503–1518. 8. REDDY, V.Y. et al., 2013. 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). Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 61(25), pp.2551–2556. 9. Holmes DR Jr, Kar S, Price MJ, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial [published correction appears in J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Sep 16;64(11):1186]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(1):1-12. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.029 10. Lakkireddy D, Thaler D, Ellis CR, et al. Amplatzer Amulet Left Atrial Appendage Occluder Versus Watchman Device for Stroke Prophylaxis (Amulet IDE): A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Circulation. 2021;144(19):1543-1552. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057063 11. Magdi M, Renjithal SLM, Mubasher M, et al. The WATCHMAN device and post-implantation anticoagulation management. A review of key studies and the risk of device-related thrombosis. Am J Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;11(6):714-722. Published 2021 Dec 15. 12. Della Rocca DG, Magnocavallo M, Gianni C, et al. Procedural and short-term follow-up outcomes of Amplatzer Amulet occluder versus Watchman FLX device: A meta-analysis. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19(6):1017-1018. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.02.007 13. Maan A, Heist EK. Left Atrial Appendage Anatomy: Implications for Endocardial Catheter-based Device Closure. J Innov Card Rhythm Manag. 2020;11(7):4179-4186. Published 2020 Jul 15. doi:10.19102/icrm.2020.110704 14. Maarse M, Wintgens LIS, Ponomarenko A, et al. Impact of anticoagulation strategy after left atrial appendage occlusion in patients requiring direct current cardioversion. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021;32(3):737-744. doi:10.1111/jce.14889 15. Sharma SP, Turagam MK, Gopinathannair R, et al. Direct Current Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Devices. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(18):2267-2274. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2019.08.1045

View Details

The field of Cardiovascular Genomics has advanced tremendously over the past two decades, having a significant clinical impact and changing the perception of the role and scope of genetic testing in several cardiovascular domains.  To kickstart the Cardiovascular Genomics series, CardioNerds Dr. Sara Coles (FIT at Duke University), Dr. Colin Blumenthal (CardioNerds Academy faculty and […]

View Details

It’s another session of CardioNerds Rounds! In these rounds, Dr. Stephanie Fuentes (EP FIT at Houston Methodist) joins Dr. Hugh Calkins (Professor of Medicine and Director of the Electrophysiology Laboratory and Arrhythmia Service at Johns Hopkins Hospital) to discuss the nuances of atrial fibrillation (AF) management through challenging cases. As an author of several guideline […]

View Details

CardioNerds (Amit Goyal), Dr. Colin Blumenthal (CardioNerds Academy House Faculty Leader and FIT at the University of Pennsylvania), and Dr. Anjali Wagle (CardioNerds Ambassador and FIT at Johns Hopkins University), discuss the baseline assessment of stroke and bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with Dr. Elaine Hylek. Dr. Hylek is a professor of […]

View Details

CardioNerds (Dr. Kelly Arps, Dr. Colin Blumenthal, Dr. Dan Ambinder, and Dr. Teodora Donisan) discuss the screening, detection, and diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) with Dr. Ben Freedman. AF is frequently undiagnosed and its first manifestation can be a debilitating stroke. European and American guidelines differ slightly with regards to guidelines for AF screening in […]

View Details

Atrial fibrillation may reach pandemic proportions in the next 2-3 decades. Factors that drive this phenomenon have been studied in predominantly White populations, leading to a significant underrepresentation of certain racial/ethnic groups in atrial fibrillation epidemiological studies. Most atrial fibrillation epidemiology studies suggest that the non-Hispanic Black population has a lower incidence/prevalence of atrial fibrillation, […]