Cited by 543Atrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsAcute Ischemic Stroke Management

Left Atrial Appendage Closure as an Alternative to Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

Open access
Holmes, David R., Doshi, Shephal K., Kar, Saibal, Price, Matthew J., Sanchez, Jose M., Sievert, Horst, Valderrabano, Miguel, Reddy, Vivek Y.·2015·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Background The risk-benefit ratio of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) versus systemic therapy (warfarin) for prevention of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) requires continued evaluation.Objectives This study sought to assess composite data regarding left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in 2 randomized trials compared to warfarin for prevention of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death in patients with nonvalvular AF.Methods Our meta-analysis included 2,406 patients with 5,931 patient-years (PY) of follow-up from the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device In Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) trials, and their respective registries (Continued Access to PROTECT AF registry and Continued Access to PREVAIL registry).Results With mean follow-up of 2.69 years, patients receiving LAAC with the Watchman device had significantly fewer hemorrhagic strokes (0.15 vs. 0.96 events/100 patient-years [PY]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.22; p = 0.004), cardiovascular/unexplained death (1.1 vs. 2.3 events/100 PY; HR: 0.48; p = 0.006), and nonprocedural bleeding (6.0% vs. 11.3%; HR: 0.51; p = 0.006) compared with warfarin. All-cause stroke or systemic embolism was similar between both strategies (1.75 vs. 1.87 events/100 PY; HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.7; p = 0.94). There were more ischemic strokes in the device group (1.6 vs. 0.9 and 0.2 vs. 1.0 events/100 PY; HR: 1.95 and 0.22, respectively; p = 0.05 and 0.004, respectively). Both trials and registries identified similar event rates and consistent device effect in multiple subsets.Conclusions In patients with NVAF at increased risk for stroke or bleeding who are candidates for chronic anticoagulation, LAAC resulted in improved rates of hemorrhagic stroke, cardiovascular/unexplained death, and nonprocedural bleeding compared to warfarin.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.04.025

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LAA occlusion was non-inferior to VKA treatment for the prevention of stroke in AF patients with moderate stroke risk, with a possibility of lower bleeding rates in patients who continued follow-up.

    “In these data sets, LAA occlusion was non-inferior to VKA treatment for the prevention of stroke in AF patients with moderate stroke risk, with a possibility of lower bleeding rates in the patients who continued follow-up. 452,453”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holmes, D. R., Doshi, S. K., Kar, S., Price, M. J., Sanchez, J. M., Sievert, H., Valderrabano, M., & Reddy, V. Y.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Saint John's Health Center (US)
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
  • Scripps Clinic (US)
  • Cardiovascular Center Frankfurt (DE)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Corresponding author
Holmes, David R.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
65
Issue
24
Pages
2614-2623
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W620992480
Cited by
543
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 86 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
54.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Boston Scientific Corporation
  • St. Jude Medical
  • Abbott Vascular
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL115003)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
Keywords
left atrial appendage closure, non-valvular atrial fibrillation, warfarin, stroke prevention, systemic embolism, Watchman device, hemorrhagic stroke, cardiovascular mortality, ischemic stroke, risk-benefit comparison, anticoagulation alternatives
MeSH terms
Anticoagulants, Atrial Fibrillation, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Warfarin, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Atrial Appendage, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review