Impact of gender in patients with device-related thrombosis after left atrial appendage closure - A sub-analysis from the multicenter EUROC-DRT-registry
- PMID: 39042643
- DOI: 10.1111/echo.15888
Impact of gender in patients with device-related thrombosis after left atrial appendage closure - A sub-analysis from the multicenter EUROC-DRT-registry
Abstract
Background: Device-related thrombosis (DRT) is a common finding after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and is associated with worse outcomes. As women are underrepresented in clinical studies, further understanding of sex differences in DRT patients is warranted.
Methods and results: This sub-analysis from the EUROC-DRT-registry compromises 176 patients with diagnosis of DRT after LAAC. Women, who accounted for 34.7% (61/176) of patients, were older (78.0 ± 6.7 vs. 74.9 ± 9.1 years, p = .06) with lower rates of comorbidities. While DRT was detected significantly later in women (173 ± 267 vs. 127 ± 192 days, p = .01), anticoagulation therapy was escalated similarly, mainly with initiation of novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC), vitamin K antagonist (VKA) or heparin. DRT resolution was achieved in 67.5% (27/40) of women and in 75.0% (54/72) of men (p = .40). In the remaining cases, an intensification/switch of anticoagulation was conducted in 50.% (9/18) of men and in 41.7% (5/12) of women. Final resolution was achieved in 72.5% (29/40) cases in women, and in 81.9% (59/72) cases in men (p = .24). Women were followed-up for a similar time as men (779 ± 520 vs. 908 ± 687 days, p = .51). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no difference in mortality rates in women (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 1.73, 95%-Confidence interval [95%-CI]: .68-4.37, p = .25) and no differences in stroke (HR: .83, 95%-CI: .30-2.32, p = .72) within 2 years after LAAC.
Conclusion: Evaluation of risk factors and outcome revealed no differences between men and women, with DRT in women being diagnosed significantly later. Women should be monitored closely to assess for DRT formation/resolution. Treatment strategies appear to be equally effective.
Keywords: atrial fibrillation; device‐related Thrombus; left atrial appendage closure; sex differences.
© 2024 The Author(s). Echocardiography published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
REFERENCES
-
- 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;123:417‐424.
-
- Tzikas A, Shakir S, Gafoor S, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: multicentre experience with the AMPLATZER cardiac plug. EuroIntervention. 2016;11:1170‐1179.
-
- Holmes DR, Kar S, Price MJ, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of the watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long‐term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1‐12.
-
- Vij V, Piayda K, Nelles D, et al. Clinical and echocardiographic risk factors for device‐related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure: an analysis from the multicenter EUROC‐DRT registry. Clin Res Cardiol. 2022;111:1276‐1285.
-
- Simard T, Jung RG, Lehenbauer K, et al. Predictors of device‐related thrombus following percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;78:297‐313.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous

