Long-term outcomes of left atrial appendage closure techniques on stroke prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation patients: epicardial excision versus percutaneous occlusion.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine Pub Date : 2025-06-04 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fcvm.2025.1601303
Adnan Abibe Goia, Meng Xu, Hu Qiuming
{"title":"Long-term outcomes of left atrial appendage closure techniques on stroke prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation patients: epicardial excision versus percutaneous occlusion.","authors":"Adnan Abibe Goia, Meng Xu, Hu Qiuming","doi":"10.3389/fcvm.2025.1601303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the efficacy of left atrial appendage closure performed by excision (LAAC-EE) vs. occlusion (LAAC-PO) for stroke prevention in patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation undergoing radiofrequency ablation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective analysis, 160 consecutive patients (109 undergoing LAAC-EE and 51 undergoing LAAC-PO) were evaluated. To adjust for baseline differences, stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied using a logistic regression model with age, sex, and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score as predictors. Weighted Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted to assess stroke-free survival over a 5-year follow-up period, and weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association between LAAC modality and stroke occurrence, adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, HAS-BLED score, and left atrium size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the weighted mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.1 ± 0.1 (3.0 ± 0.2 in LAAC-EE vs. 3.3 ± 0.2 in LAAC-PO; <i>p</i> = 0.159), indicating moderate baseline stroke risk. When stratified, 39.2% of LAAC-EE and 18.9% of LAAC-PO patients were in the low-risk category (CHA2DS2-VASc ≤2), 48.2% vs. 69.6% in the medium-risk group (score 3-4), and 12.6% vs. 11.5% in the high-risk group (score ≥5) (<i>p</i> = 0.093). Over 5 years, stroke occurred in 64 patients-29.4% in the LAAC-EE group vs. 62.7% in LAAC-PO-and weighted Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly greater stroke-free survival with excision (log-rank <i>p</i> < 0.001). In the weighted multivariate Cox model, LAAC-EE was associated with a non-significant 51.6% reduction in stroke risk (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.13-1.74; <i>p</i> = 0.27). Age (HR 1.09 per year; <i>p</i> = 0.008) and HAS-BLED score (HR 10.54; <i>p</i> < 0.001) remained significant predictors, whereas sex, diabetes, and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score did not.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the multivariate analysis did not achieve statistical significance for the treatment modality, the observed hazard ratio indicates that LAAC-EE may reduce stroke risk by approximately 51.6% compared to LAAC-PO. The significant impact of age and HAS-BLED score on stroke risk underscores the importance of individualized patient selection. These findings suggest a potential clinical benefit of LAAC-EE, particularly among lower-risk patients, and warrant further investigation in larger prospective studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12414,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"12 ","pages":"1601303"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12174162/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1601303","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of left atrial appendage closure performed by excision (LAAC-EE) vs. occlusion (LAAC-PO) for stroke prevention in patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation undergoing radiofrequency ablation.

Methods: In this retrospective analysis, 160 consecutive patients (109 undergoing LAAC-EE and 51 undergoing LAAC-PO) were evaluated. To adjust for baseline differences, stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied using a logistic regression model with age, sex, and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score as predictors. Weighted Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted to assess stroke-free survival over a 5-year follow-up period, and weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association between LAAC modality and stroke occurrence, adjusting for age, sex, diabetes, CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, HAS-BLED score, and left atrium size.

Results: Overall, the weighted mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.1 ± 0.1 (3.0 ± 0.2 in LAAC-EE vs. 3.3 ± 0.2 in LAAC-PO; p = 0.159), indicating moderate baseline stroke risk. When stratified, 39.2% of LAAC-EE and 18.9% of LAAC-PO patients were in the low-risk category (CHA2DS2-VASc ≤2), 48.2% vs. 69.6% in the medium-risk group (score 3-4), and 12.6% vs. 11.5% in the high-risk group (score ≥5) (p = 0.093). Over 5 years, stroke occurred in 64 patients-29.4% in the LAAC-EE group vs. 62.7% in LAAC-PO-and weighted Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly greater stroke-free survival with excision (log-rank p < 0.001). In the weighted multivariate Cox model, LAAC-EE was associated with a non-significant 51.6% reduction in stroke risk (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.13-1.74; p = 0.27). Age (HR 1.09 per year; p = 0.008) and HAS-BLED score (HR 10.54; p < 0.001) remained significant predictors, whereas sex, diabetes, and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score did not.

Conclusion: Although the multivariate analysis did not achieve statistical significance for the treatment modality, the observed hazard ratio indicates that LAAC-EE may reduce stroke risk by approximately 51.6% compared to LAAC-PO. The significant impact of age and HAS-BLED score on stroke risk underscores the importance of individualized patient selection. These findings suggest a potential clinical benefit of LAAC-EE, particularly among lower-risk patients, and warrant further investigation in larger prospective studies.

左心耳关闭技术对复发性心房颤动患者卒中预防的长期效果:心外膜切除与经皮闭塞。
目的:本研究旨在比较射频消融术后复发性心房颤动患者左心耳切除闭合(LAAC-EE)与闭合(LAAC-PO)预防脑卒中的疗效。方法:对160例连续患者(109例LAAC-EE, 51例LAAC-PO)进行回顾性分析。为了调整基线差异,采用logistic回归模型,以年龄、性别和CHA₂DS₂-VASc评分为预测因子,应用稳定治疗加权逆概率(IPTW)。加权Kaplan-Meier生存分析用于评估5年随访期间无卒中生存率,加权Cox比例风险回归用于评估LAAC方式与卒中发生之间的关系,调整年龄、性别、糖尿病、CHA₂DS₂-VASc评分、ha - bled评分和左心房大小。结果:总体而言,加权平均CHA2DS2-VASc评分为3.1±0.1 (LAAC-EE组为3.0±0.2,LAAC-PO组为3.3±0.2;P = 0.159),表明基线卒中风险中等。分层时,39.2%的LAAC-EE和18.9%的LAAC-PO患者为低危组(CHA2DS2-VASc≤2),48.2%对69.6%为中危组(评分3-4),12.6%对11.5%为高危组(评分≥5)(p = 0.093)。5年内,64例患者发生卒中,LAAC-EE组为29.4%,laac - po组为62.7%,加权Kaplan-Meier分析显示,切除后无卒中生存率显著提高(log-rank p = 0.27)。年龄(HR 1.09 /年;p = 0.008)和ha - bled评分(HR 10.54;p结论:虽然治疗方式的多因素分析没有达到统计学意义,但观察到的危险比表明LAAC-EE比LAAC-PO可降低约51.6%的卒中风险。年龄和ha - bled评分对卒中风险的显著影响强调了个体化患者选择的重要性。这些发现表明LAAC-EE具有潜在的临床益处,特别是在低风险患者中,值得在更大规模的前瞻性研究中进一步调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
3529
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers? Which frontiers? Where exactly are the frontiers of cardiovascular medicine? And who should be defining these frontiers? At Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine we believe it is worth being curious to foresee and explore beyond the current frontiers. In other words, we would like, through the articles published by our community journal Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, to anticipate the future of cardiovascular medicine, and thus better prevent cardiovascular disorders and improve therapeutic options and outcomes of our patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信