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

Background: 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).Aims: 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.Methods: 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).Results: 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.Conclusion: 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.