# Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Intermediate-to-Borderline High Cardiovascular Risk: A Retrospective Propensity Match Cohort Study

## TL;DR

This study compares the effectiveness and safety of left atrial appendage closure and oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and moderate stroke risk.

## Contribution

The study provides new evidence comparing LAAC and OACs in a specific subgroup of atrial fibrillation patients with intermediate-to-borderline high stroke risk.

## Key findings

- Oral anticoagulants were more effective than LAAC in preventing thromboembolic events.
- LAAC had a higher incidence of the primary composite efficacy endpoint compared to OACs.
- Procedure-related events occurred in LAAC patients but did not significantly affect overall outcomes.

## Abstract

Background and objective: Evidence of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulants (OACs) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with intermediate-to-borderline high stroke risk is scarce. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these treatments in the latter clinical population. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included NVAF patients with CHA2DS2-VA scores of 1–2 and used 1:1 propensity score matching (184 patients per group) to compare efficacy and safety outcomes. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attacks, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death during follow-up. Adverse safety events were categorized into peri-procedure (LAAC group) and non-procedural (both groups) events. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 48.93 ± 28.50 months, a total of 26 patients (7.07%) reached the primary composite efficacy endpoint. The LAAC group showed a significantly higher incidence of the efficacy endpoint compared to the OAC group (HR = 3.09; 95% CI 1.22–7.85; log-rank p = 0.01). Procedure-related events occurred in five LAAC patients (one contributing to primary endpoint), while non-procedural bleeding rates were similar (0.54% vs. 1.09%; p = 0.56). Subgroup analyses suggested concomitant ablation of NVAF in LAAC group did not significantly improve efficacy composite endpoints (HR = 0.47). Conclusions: In NVAF patients with intermediate-to-high stroke risk, OACs were more effective than LAAC in preventing thromboembolic events, with comparable rates of clinically relevant bleeding.