Clinical Outcomes of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Versus Switch of Direct Oral Antcoagulant in Atrial Fibrillation: A Territory‐Wide Retrospective Analysis

Abstract

Background Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as an alternative to oral anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, but data comparing LAAO with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) are sparse. Methods and Results This cohort study compared LAAO (with or without prior anticoagulation) with a switch of one DOAC to another DOAC by 1:2 propensity score matching. The primary outcome was a composite of all‐cause mortality, ischemic stroke, and major bleeding. A total of 2350 patients (874 in the LAAO group and 1476 in the DOAC switch group) were included. After a mean follow‐up of 1052±694 days, the primary outcome developed in 215 (24.6%) patients in the LAAO group and in 335 (22.7%) patients in the DOAC switch group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.80–1.12]; P =0.516). The LAAO group had a lower all‐cause mortality (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.39–0.60]; P <0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.32–0.73]; P <0.001) but similar risk of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.63–1.10]; P =0.194). The major bleeding risk was similar overall (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.94–1.48], P =0.150) but was lower in the LAAO group after 6 months (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.51–0.97]; P =0.032). Conclusions LAAO conferred a similar risk of composite outcome of all‐cause mortality, ischemic stroke, and major bleeding, as compared with DOAC switch. The risks of all‐cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were lower with LAAO.