拒绝口服抗凝的左心耳关闭:laac -拒绝研究。

IF 5.3 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Journal of the American Heart Association Pub Date : 2025-10-07 Epub Date: 2025-09-25 DOI:10.1161/JAHA.124.040404
Roberto Galea, Tommaso Bini, Kasper Korsholm, Alexander Sedaghat, Adel Aminian, Vivian Vij, Juan Perich Krsnik, Konstantina Chalkou, Georgios Siontis, Laurent Roten, Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk, Lorenz Räber
{"title":"拒绝口服抗凝的左心耳关闭:laac -拒绝研究。","authors":"Roberto Galea, Tommaso Bini, Kasper Korsholm, Alexander Sedaghat, Adel Aminian, Vivian Vij, Juan Perich Krsnik, Konstantina Chalkou, Georgios Siontis, Laurent Roten, Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk, Lorenz Räber","doi":"10.1161/JAHA.124.040404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The benefit of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients refusing oral anticoagulation (OAC) despite medical recommendations is unknown. We aim to assess the efficacy and the safety of LAAC in patients refusing OAC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data on consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous LAAC between 2009 and 2022 in 4 European centers were collected and patients undergoing LAAC due to refusal of OAC (refusal group) were compared with patients receiving LAAC for more established indications (control group). The primary end point of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism. The secondary end points included technical success and procedural complications. Events during follow-up were compared with those predicted by CHA2DS2VASC and hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile International Normalized Ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly (HASBLED) score risks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 2649 patients submitted to LAAC, 119 were performed due to OAC refusal (4.5%). Two-hundred-thirty-eight (8.9%) control patients were identified. Refusal as compared with the control group included younger and lower-risk patients. At 3 years, the primary end point was significantly lower (4.2% versus 17.2%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.14-0.99; <i>P</i>=0.048) in the refusal in respect to the control group. Technical success and procedural complications were similar between groups. In the refusal group, the annual rate of thromboembolic events and major bleedings were 2.3% and 1.9%, respectively, corresponding to 62% and 47% risk reductions as compared with the rates expected by risk scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this multicenter cohort of consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation submitted to LAAC, OAC refusal appeared as an infrequent indication. In this subgroup, LAAC was confirmed to be feasible and safe. The ischemic outcomes rates at 3 years are promising. Further studies are needed to better understand the potential effects of preferring LAAC over OAC.</p>","PeriodicalId":54370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":" ","pages":"e040404"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Patients Refusing Oral Anticoagulation: The LAAC-REFUSAL Study.\",\"authors\":\"Roberto Galea, Tommaso Bini, Kasper Korsholm, Alexander Sedaghat, Adel Aminian, Vivian Vij, Juan Perich Krsnik, Konstantina Chalkou, Georgios Siontis, Laurent Roten, Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk, Lorenz Räber\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/JAHA.124.040404\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The benefit of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients refusing oral anticoagulation (OAC) despite medical recommendations is unknown. We aim to assess the efficacy and the safety of LAAC in patients refusing OAC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data on consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous LAAC between 2009 and 2022 in 4 European centers were collected and patients undergoing LAAC due to refusal of OAC (refusal group) were compared with patients receiving LAAC for more established indications (control group). The primary end point of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism. The secondary end points included technical success and procedural complications. Events during follow-up were compared with those predicted by CHA2DS2VASC and hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile International Normalized Ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly (HASBLED) score risks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 2649 patients submitted to LAAC, 119 were performed due to OAC refusal (4.5%). Two-hundred-thirty-eight (8.9%) control patients were identified. Refusal as compared with the control group included younger and lower-risk patients. At 3 years, the primary end point was significantly lower (4.2% versus 17.2%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.14-0.99; <i>P</i>=0.048) in the refusal in respect to the control group. Technical success and procedural complications were similar between groups. In the refusal group, the annual rate of thromboembolic events and major bleedings were 2.3% and 1.9%, respectively, corresponding to 62% and 47% risk reductions as compared with the rates expected by risk scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this multicenter cohort of consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation submitted to LAAC, OAC refusal appeared as an infrequent indication. In this subgroup, LAAC was confirmed to be feasible and safe. The ischemic outcomes rates at 3 years are promising. Further studies are needed to better understand the potential effects of preferring LAAC over OAC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e040404\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.040404\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.040404","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:左心耳关闭(LAAC)对不顾医学建议拒绝口服抗凝(OAC)的患者的益处尚不清楚。我们的目的是评估LAAC在拒绝OAC患者中的疗效和安全性。方法:收集2009年至2022年4个欧洲中心连续房颤经皮LAAC患者的数据,将因OAC拒绝而接受LAAC的患者(拒绝组)与针对更明确适应症接受LAAC的患者(对照组)进行比较。研究的主要终点是心血管死亡、中风或全身性栓塞的组合。次要终点包括技术成功和手术并发症。比较随访期间CHA2DS2VASC与高血压、肾/肝功能异常、卒中、出血史或易感性、不稳定国际标准化比值、老年、药物/酒精合并(HASBLED)评分风险预测的事件。结果:2649例LAAC患者中,有119例因OAC拒绝而行LAAC手术(4.5%)。对照组238例(8.9%)。与对照组相比,拒绝治疗的患者包括较年轻和风险较低的患者。在3年时,拒绝治疗组的主要终点明显低于对照组(4.2% vs . 17.2%;校正风险比:0.37;95% CI: 0.14-0.99; P=0.048)。两组间技术成功率和手术并发症相似。在拒绝组中,血栓栓塞事件和大出血的年发生率分别为2.3%和1.9%,与风险评分预期的发生率相比,相应的风险降低了62%和47%。结论:在这个连续接受LAAC治疗的房颤患者的多中心队列中,OAC拒绝是一个罕见的指征。在这个亚组中,LAAC被证实是可行和安全的。3年的缺血性预后率是有希望的。需要进一步的研究来更好地了解选择LAAC而不是OAC的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Patients Refusing Oral Anticoagulation: The LAAC-REFUSAL Study.

Background: The benefit of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients refusing oral anticoagulation (OAC) despite medical recommendations is unknown. We aim to assess the efficacy and the safety of LAAC in patients refusing OAC.

Methods: Data on consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous LAAC between 2009 and 2022 in 4 European centers were collected and patients undergoing LAAC due to refusal of OAC (refusal group) were compared with patients receiving LAAC for more established indications (control group). The primary end point of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism. The secondary end points included technical success and procedural complications. Events during follow-up were compared with those predicted by CHA2DS2VASC and hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile International Normalized Ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly (HASBLED) score risks.

Results: Of the 2649 patients submitted to LAAC, 119 were performed due to OAC refusal (4.5%). Two-hundred-thirty-eight (8.9%) control patients were identified. Refusal as compared with the control group included younger and lower-risk patients. At 3 years, the primary end point was significantly lower (4.2% versus 17.2%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.14-0.99; P=0.048) in the refusal in respect to the control group. Technical success and procedural complications were similar between groups. In the refusal group, the annual rate of thromboembolic events and major bleedings were 2.3% and 1.9%, respectively, corresponding to 62% and 47% risk reductions as compared with the rates expected by risk scores.

Conclusions: In this multicenter cohort of consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation submitted to LAAC, OAC refusal appeared as an infrequent indication. In this subgroup, LAAC was confirmed to be feasible and safe. The ischemic outcomes rates at 3 years are promising. Further studies are needed to better understand the potential effects of preferring LAAC over OAC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the American Heart Association
Journal of the American Heart Association CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
1749
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: As an Open Access journal, JAHA - Journal of the American Heart Association is rapidly and freely available, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice. JAHA is an authoritative, peer-reviewed Open Access journal focusing on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. JAHA provides a global forum for basic and clinical research and timely reviews on cardiovascular disease and stroke. As an Open Access journal, its content is free on publication to read, download, and share, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice.
×
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