Abstract Body (Do not enter title and authors here): Background: Oral anticoagulants (OAC) including Vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants like Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, and Edoxaban, have long been the standard treatment for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, they increase the risk of bleeding, making them unsuitable for certain patient populations, particularly those with a personal history of bleeding, elderly individuals prone to falls or those with high-risk occupation with safety hazards. In cases of non-valvular AF, where thrombi typically form in the left atrial appendage, mechanical left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has come out as an alternative for selected patients. Numerous studies have shown that LAAC is comparable to OAC in preventing strokes while significantly reducing major bleeding events. This meta-analysis aims to compare the 4–5-year outcomes of these two treatment strategies in non-valvular AF.
Methods: 4 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 1 observational study) comparing the 4–5-year outcomes of LAAC versus OAC in patients with AF were included in this meta-analysis. These studies were identified after a thorough search of PUBMED, COCHRANE, and MEDLINE databases from inception till May 2024. The outcomes of interest were MACE (composite of stroke, embolism, and death), ischemic stroke, major bleeding episodes, cardiovascular (CV) deaths, and all-cause death. The results were reported as Risk Ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using a random effects model.
Results: 6,012 patients were identified from the 4 studies. After a median follow-up of 4–5 years, LAAC was associated with a clinically significant reduction in MACE (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.61-0.94, p=0.01), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62-0.96, p=0.02), and CV mortality (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.45-0.90, p=0.01). Additionally, a significant reduction in major bleeding episodes (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44-0.91, p=0.01) was also noted between the two treatment strategies favoring LAAC treatment group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of ischemic stroke (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.62-1.85, p=0.80) between the two groups.
Conclusion: Over a median follow-up of 4-5 years, LAAC was found to be as effective as OAC in preventing ischemic strokes, while also showing lower incidence of MACE, all-cause, CV mortality and major bleeding episodes. More RCTs are needed to further assess the long-term outcomes between the two strategies.