Left atrial appendage closure: a new strategy for cardioembolic events despite oral anticoagulation.

Background Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (nvAF) who experienced a cardioembolic (CE) event despite adequate oral anticoagulation (OAC) are at high risk of recurrence, and further prevention strategies are deemed necessary. The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of off-label use of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in this subset of patients. Methods and results Seventy-five consecutive patients with nvAF who experienced a CE event despite adequate OAC therapy were retrospectively enrolled from two Italian centers. Patients were divided according to the treatment strategy following the index event: DOAC group (49 patients who continued OAC therapy with DOACs) and LAAC group (26 patients who underwent LAAC procedure). 1:1 propensity-score matching between the two groups was performed. LAAC group was made up of two subgroups according to the post-procedural pharmacological regimen: (a) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 3 months followed by indefinite single antiplatelet therapy (LAAC+SAPT) or (b) aspirin plus DOAC for 3 months followed by indefinite DOAC therapy (LAAC+DOAC). The primary endpoint was a composite of CE event, major bleeding, or procedurerelated major complication. During a median follow-up of 3.4 years (IQR 2.0-5.3), LAAC was a predictor of primary endpoint-free survival (HR 0.28, 95%CI 0.08-0.97; p=0.044); within LAAC group, no procedure-related major complication occurred. Moreover, a trend toward a lower rate of both CE events and major bleedings was observed in LAAC group, particularly in the subgroup LAAC+DOAC. Conclusions LAAC is a reasonable therapeutic option in nvAF patients who suffered a CE event despite adequate OAC therapy.