Long-term outcomes of left atrial appendage closure with or without concomitant pulmonary vein isolation:a propensity score matching analysis based on CLACBAC study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The combined procedure of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with concomitant pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has demonstrated its efficacy and safety. However, there is still a lack of comparative investigations regarding the long-term benefits of the combined procedure when compared to LAAC alone. Our study aims to assess the long-term outcomes of combined procedure of LAAC with concomitant PVI in comparison with a propensity matched LAAC alone group. METHODS: Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to rectify covariate imbalances, resulting in the inclusion of 153 comparable patients from the initial cohort of 333 non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Clinical outcomes, encompassing thrombotic events, major cardiocerebrovascular adverse events (MACCE), re-hospitalization due to cardiovascular disease (CVD), and atrial tachycardia (AT), were juxtaposed between the two groups. Bleeding events and peri-device complications, such as residual flow, device-related thrombus, and device replacement, were also compared. Additionally, a patients group underwent PVI alone was included for comparing AF recurrence rates between the PVI alone group and the combined group. RESULTS: Following PSM, 153 patients (mean age 70.3 ± 8.9, 62.7% men) were included, with 102 undergoing the combined procedure and 51 undergoing LAAC alone. No significant differences were found in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The mean follow-up time was 37.6 ± 7.9 months, and two patients were lost to follow-up in the combined procedure group. Thrombotic events were observed in 4 (7.8%) patients in the LAAC alone group and 4 (4.0%) in the combined group (Log-rank p = 0.301). The proportion of patients experiencing MACCE, re-hospitalization due to CVD, and AT between the two groups was comparable, as were bleeding events and peri-device complications. Among patients from the combined procedure group without AF recurrence, a significant difference was noted in prior-procedure left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and LVEF at the 12th month after the procedure (57.2% ± 7.1% vs. 60.5% ± 6.5%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The concomitant PVI and LAAC procedure did not increase procedure-related complications, nor did it confer significant benefits in preventing thrombotic events or reducing other cardiovascular events. However, the combined procedure improved heart function, suggesting potential long-term benefits.