Direct oral anticoagulants versus percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in atrial fibrillation: 5-year outcomes

LAAO is an emerging option for thromboembolic event prevention in patients with NVAF. We previously reported data on comparison between LAAO and DOAC at two-year follow-up in NVAF patients at HBR (HAS-BLED ≥3).Limited data are available on long term follow-up. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus LAAO indication after 5 years.We enrolled 193 HBR treated with LAAO and 189 HBR patients with DOACs. At baseline, LAAO group had higher HAS-BLED (4.2 vs 3.3, p < 0.001) and lower CHADS-VASc (4.3 vs. 4.7, p = 0.005). After 1:1 PSM, 192 patients were included (LAAO n = 96; DOACs n = 96).At 5-year follow-up the rate of the combined safety and effectiveness endpoint (ISTH major bleeding and thromboembolic events) was significantly higher in LAAO group (p = 0.042), driven by a higher number of thromboembolic events (p = 0.047). The rate of ISTH-major bleeding events was similar (p = 0.221). After PSM no significant difference in the primary effectiveness (LAAO 13.3% vs DOACs 9.5%, p = 0.357) and safety endpoint (LAAO 7.5% vs DOACs 7.5%; p = 0.918) were evident. Overall bleeding rate was significantly higher in DOACs group (25.0% vs 13.7%, p = 0.048), while a non-significant higher number of TIA was reported in LAAO group (5.4% vs 1.1%, p = 0.098). All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were higher in LAAO group at both unmatched and matched analysis.We confirmed safety and effectiveness of both DOAC and LAAO in NVAF patients at HBR, with no significant differences in thromboembolic events or major bleeding were at 5-year follow-up. The observed increased mortality after LAAO warrants further investigations in RCTs.