Indirect comparison of nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants and left atrial appendage occlusion

Abstract

Background: Anticoagulation is important in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients to reduce the occurrence of thrombotic events. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as an alternative to systemic anticoagulation through an indirect comparative analysis.Methods: An indirect comparative analysis of nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and LAAO was conducted. Comparisons were made using data from four landmark randomized clinical trials (RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, ARISTOTLE, and PROTECT AF). Using warfarin as the common comparator, an indirect comparison was performed using data from each trial, and the relative risk was calculated between NOACs and LAAO.Results: NOACs and LAAO showed similar results for the reduction of stroke and systemic embolism, with a non-statistically significant trend favoring NOACs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37–1.46 for dabigatran; HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.50–1.92 for rivaroxaban; HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45–1.74 for apixaban). Significantly fewer major bleeding and procedure-related complications were found in patients treated with apixaban compared with LAAO (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26–0.75). Cardiovascular death occurred more frequently in patients administered NOACs than in patients with LAAO (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.03–5.10 for dabigatran; HR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.09–5.42 for rivaroxaban; HR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.10–5.36 for apixaban). Conclusions: The rate of all-cause death was similar between NOACs and LAAO. Compared with LAAO, NOACs led to a nonsignificant numerical decrease in stroke and embolism in AF patients. Significantly fewer safety events occurred in patients treated with apixaban. LAAO significantly reduced cardiovascular death.