RESUMEN
Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) proved to be noninferior to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in nonablated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LAAC with those of OAC therapy in patients after AF ablation. This study included patients who underwent catheter ablation (CA) of AF between January 2016 and December 2020. The cohort was divided into CA + LAAC and CA + OAC, where propensity score matching was used to select controls, and each group contained 682 subjects. The enrolled patients' mean age was 70.34 ± 8.32 years, and 47.3% were female; their CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.48 ± 1.17. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. After a 3-year mean follow-up, the incidence of thromboembolic events was 1.25 and 1.10 and that of major bleeding events was 0.65 and 1.72 per 100 patient-years in the CA + LAAC, and CA + OAC groups, respectively. The rate of thromboembolisms and major adverse cardiovascular events was similar between the 2 groups (hazard ratio [HR] 1.162, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.665 to 2.030, p = 0.598, HR 0.711, 95% CI 0.502 to 1.005, p = 0.053); however, that of major bleeding and all-cause death was significantly reduced with LAAC (HR 0.401, 95% CI 0.216 to 0.746, p = 0.004, HR 0.528, 95% CI 0.281 to 0.989, p = 0.046). There was no significant difference in periprocedural complications (p >0.05) and the rate of AF recurrence (OAC vs LAAC: 39.44% vs 40.62%, p = 0.658). LAAC is a reasonable and safer alternative to OAC therapy in high-risk patients after AF ablation.
