Abstract
PURPOSE: Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), a nonpharmacologic option (e.g., percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion [LAAO]) is needed for patients with oral anticoagulant (OAC) contraindications. Among beneficiaries in the Medicare fee-for-service coverage 20% sample databases (2015-18) who had AF and an elevated CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score, we assessed the association between percutaneous LAAO versus OAC use and risk of stroke, hospitalized bleeding, and death. METHODS: Patients undergoing percutaneous LAAO were matched to up to five OAC users by sex, age, date of enrollment, index date, CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score, and HAS-BLED score. Overall, 17 156 patients with AF (2905 with percutaneous LAAO) were matched (average ± SD 78 ± 6 years, 44% female). Cox proportional hazards model were used. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 10.3 months. After multivariable adjustments, no significant difference for risk of stroke or death was noted when patients with percutaneous LAAO were compared with OAC users (HRs [95% CIs]: 1.14 [0.86-1.52], 0.98 [0.86-1.10]). There was a 2.94-fold (95% CI: 2.50-3.45) increased risk for hospitalized bleeding for percutaneous LAAO compared with OAC use. Among patients 65 to <78 years old, those undergoing percutaneous LAAO had higher risk of stroke compared with OAC users. No association was present in those ≥78 years. CONCLUSION: In this analysis of real-world AF patients, percutaneous LAAO versus OAC use was associated with similar risk of death, nonsignificantly elevated risk of stroke, and an elevated risk of bleeding in the post-procedural period. Overall, these results support results of randomized trials that percutaneous LAAO may be an alternative to OAC use for patients with contraindications.