Watchman outcomes comparing post-implantation anticoagulation with warfarin versus direct oral anticoagulants

As left atrial appendage occlusion devices (LAAO) implantation rates grow, continued evaluation on best patient practices is important. We report pooled Watchman outcomes at a multicenter Texas healthcare system with an emphasis on clinical outcomes and post-implantation anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin.

Methods

Data for 163 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing Watchman implantation was collected via retrospective chart review between June 2016 and June 2018. A Fisher’s exact test was utilized to evaluate associations in bivariate comparisons of categorical data. Tests of non-inferiority, applied between DOACs and warfarin, utilized a ratio of 2.

Results

Outcomes were significant for similar rates of stroke, disabling stroke, major bleeds, and all-cause mortality when compared to published clinical trials. Most patients with cerebrovascular events were found to have >5 mm peri-device leaks (PDLs), were on warfarin at the time of the event (75%), and all occurred within the first 6 months post implant. A significant number of patients were discharged on DOACs (42%). DOACs were shown to be non-inferior to warfarin with respect to stroke (p = 0.0048), disabling stroke (p = 0.0383), gastrointestinal bleeding (p = 0.0287), mortality (p = 0.0165), and combined adverse outcomes (p = 0.0040). DOACs were associated with less combined adverse outcomes (p = 0.021).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that additional imaging or aggressive management of PDLs in Watchman recipients within the initial 6-month follow-up may aid in reducing stroke rates. Additionally, anticoagulation with DOACs’ post Watchman implantation was found non-inferior to warfarin, with some evidence of lower risk for adverse outcomes favoring DOACs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic €32.70 /Month

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Similar content being viewed by others

Anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure—subanalysis from the multicenter LAARGE registry

Article 23 October 2021

Short-term antiplatelet versus anticoagulant therapy after left atrial appendage closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Article 05 January 2024

Latest outcomes of transcatheter left atrial appendage closure devices and direct oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation over the past 5 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Article Open access 30 January 2022

References

  1. Wyse DG, Waldo AL, DiMarco JP, et al. Atrial fibrillation follow-up investigation of rhythm management (AFFIRM) investigators. A comparison of rate control and rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(23):1825. ArticleCASGoogle Scholar
  2. Ogawa S, Yamashita T, Yamazaki T, J-RHYTHM Investigators, et al. Optimal treatment strategy for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: J-RHYTHM Study. Circ J. 2009;73(2):242. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, Lane DA, Crijns HJ. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010;137(2):263–72. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.09-1584. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Reddy VY, Holmes D, Doshi SK, Neuzil P, Kar S. Safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: results from the watchman left atrial appendage system for embolic protection in patients with AF (PROTECT AF) clinical trial and the continued access registry. Circulation. 2011;123:417–24. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Belgaid DR, Khana Z, Zaidi M, Hobbs A. Prospective randomized evaluation of the watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy - the PREVAIL trial. Int J Cardiol. 2016;219:177–9. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergmann MW, Betts TR, Sievert H, Schmidt B, et al. Safety and efficacy of early anticoagulation drug regimens after WATCHMAN left atrial appendage closure: three-month data from the EWOLUTION prospective, multicentre, monitored international WATCHMAN LAA closure registry. EuroIntervention. 2017;13:877–84. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Reddy VY, Doshi SK, Kar S, Gibson DN, On behalf of the PREVAIL and PROTECT AF Investigators, et al. 5-Year Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure, From the PREVAIL and PROTECT AF Trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(24). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.021 ISSN 0735–1097.
  8. Khalighi K, Sharma M, Masih R, Levin V. Postapproval community hospital experience in the United States with left atrial appendage closure device (Watchman). J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;27(9):2538–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.05.016. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Moussa Pacha H, Al-Khadra Y, Soud M, Darmoch F, Moussa Pacha A, Alraies MC. Percutaneous devices for left atrial appendage occlusion: a contemporary review. World J Cardiol. 2019;11(2):57–70. https://doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v11.i2.57. ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Topcuoglu MA, Liu L, Kim DE, Gurol ME. Updates on prevention of cardioembolic strokes. J Stroke. 2018;20(2):180–96. https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2018.00780. ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Kosturakis R, Price MJ. Current state of left atrial appendage closure. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2018;20(6):42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-018-0981-z. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hellenbart EL, Faulkenberg KD, Finks SW. Evaluation of bleeding in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2017;13:325–42. https://doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S121661 Published online 2017 Aug 23. ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Reddy VY, Akehurst RL, Amorosi SL, Gavaghan MB, Hertz DS, Holmes DR Jr. Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device compared with warfarin or non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for secondary prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Stroke. 2018;49(6):1464–70. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.018825 Published online 2018 May 8. ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Phillips KP, Santoso T, Sanders P, Alison J, Chan JLK, Pak HN, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with WATCHMAN in Asian patients: 2-year outcomes from the WASP registry. IJC Heart Vasc. 2019;23:100358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2019.100358. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Enomoto Y, Gadiyaram VK, Gianni C, Horton RP, Trivedi C, Mohanty S, et al. Use of non-warfarin oral anticoagulants instead of warfarin during left atrial appendage closure with the watchman device. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14(1):19–24. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen S, Weise FK, Chun KJ, Schmidt B. Antithrombotic strategies after interventional left atrial appendage closure: an update. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2018;16(9):675–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14779072.2018.1510316. ArticleCASPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bergmann MW, Ince H, Kische S, et al. Real-world safety and efficacy of WATCHMAN LAA closure at one year in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy: results of the DAPT subgroup from the EWOLUTION all-comers study. EuroIntervention. 2018;13(17):2003–11. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00672. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Freixa X, Llull L, Gafoor S, et al. Characterization of cerebrovascular events after left atrial appendage occlusion. Am J Cardiol. 2016;118(12):1836–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.08.075. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Saw J, Fahmy P, DeJong P, et al. Cardiac CT angiography for device surveillance after endovascular left atrial appendage closure. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;16(11):1198–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jev067 Published online 2015 Apr 7. ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Viles-Gonzalez JF, Kar S, Douglas P, Dukkipati S, Feldman T, Horton R, et al. The clinical impact of incomplete left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device in patients with atrial fibrillation: a PROTECT AF (percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage versus warfarin therapy for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation) substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:923–9. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Nguyen A, Gallet R, Riant E, Deux JF, Boukantar M, Mouillet G, et al. Peridevice leak after left atrial appendage closure: incidence, risk factors, and clinical impact. Can J Cardiol. 2019;35(4):405–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2018.12.022. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pillarisetti J, Reddy YM, Gunda S, Swarup V, Lee R, Rasekh A, et al. Endocardial (watchman) vs epicardial (lariat) left atrial appendage exclusion devices: understanding the differences in the location and type of leaks and their clinical implications. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(7):1501–7. ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Granier M, Laugaudin G, Massin F, Cade S, Winum PF, Freitag C, et al. Occurrence of incomplete endothelialization causing residual permeability after left atrial appendage closure. J Invasive Cardiol. 2018;30(7):245–50. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Garkina SV, Vavilova TV, Lebedev DS, Mikhaylov EN. Compliance and adherence to oral anticoagulation therapy in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation in the era of direct oral anticoagulants. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2016;13(9):807–10. https://doi.org/10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2016.09.010. ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. el Mar Contreras Muruaga M, Vivancos J, Reig G, González A, Cardona P, Ramírez-Moreno J. Satisfaction, quality of life and perception of patients regarding burdens and benefits of Vitamin K antagonists compared with direct oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. J Comp Eff Res. 2017;6. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2016-0078.
  26. Alegret JM, Viñolas X, Arias MA, Martínez-Rubio A, Rebollo P, Ràfols C, et al. New Oral Anticoagulants vs Vitamin K Antagonists: Benefits for Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. Int J Med Sci. 2014;11(7):680–4. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.8916 Published online 2014 May 1. ArticleCASPubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Baylor Scott & White Health, Scott & White Memorial Hospital, 2401 S 31st Street, Temple, TX, 76508, USA Ethan Fry, Keith Suarez, Javier Banchs & Jeffrey Michel
  2. Department of Medicine, Baylor Scott & White Round Rock, Round Rock, TX, USA Harini Bollempali
  1. Ethan Fry