Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Zweiker, David
• Sieghartsleitner, Raphael
• Fiedler, Lukas
• Toth, Gabor G.
• Luha, Olev
• Stix, Guenter
• Gabriel, Harald
• Vock, Paul
• Lileg, Brigitte
• Strouhal, Andreas
• Delle-Karth, Geort
• Pfeffer, Michael
• Aichinger, Josef
• Tkalec, Wolfgang
• Steinwender, Clemens
• Sihorsch, Kurt
• Binder, Ronald K.
• Rammer, Martin
• Barbieri, Fabian
• Mueller, Silvana
• Verheyen, Nicolas
• Ablasser, Klemens
• Zirlik, Andreas
• Scherr, Daniel

Titel

Indications and Outcome in Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Closure—The Austrian LAAC Registry

Ist Teil von

• Journal of clinical medicine, 2020-10, Vol.9 (10), p.3274

Ort / Verlag

Basel: MDPI AG

Erscheinungsjahr

2020

Quelle

Free E-Journal (出版社公開部分のみ）

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Background: Complete real-world data on the indications and outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) outside of clinical trials are rare. In this study, we stratified patients undergoing LAAC by indication groups. Methods: This analysis of the national multicentre Austrian LAAC Registry comprised all patients that underwent LAAC up until 2018 at the currently active centres in Austria. The baseline characteristics, procedural details and outcomes between the following indication groups were compared: bleeding as an indication for LAAC (“bleeding” group) vs. thromboembolism despite oral anticoagulation (OAC; “thromboembolism” group) vs. an intolerance to OAC for reasons other than the above (“other” group). Results: The analysis included 186 patients, with 59.7% in the “bleeding” group, 8.1% in the “thromboembolism” group and 32.2% in the “other” group. The CHADS2 score was the highest in the “thromboembolism” group and the HAS-BLED score was the highest in the “bleeding” group. The procedural outcomes were similar between groups (implantation success, 97.3%), with major complications occurring in 7.0% of patients. One-year survival free from stroke, bleeding or LAAC-associated hospitalisation was 83.9%, 90.0% and 81.4% in the “bleeding”, “thromboembolism” and “other” groups, respectively (p = 0.891). Conclusions: In routine clinical practice, LAAC was used in a heterogeneous patient population with atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication, inefficacy or intolerance to OAC. The long-term outcome was favourable in all groups.