← Back
NeuroTrials.ai
Neurology Clinical Trial Database

LAAOS III

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion during Cardiac Surgery to Prevent Stroke

Year of Publication: 2021

Authors: R.P. Whitlock, E.P. Belley-Cote, D. Paparella, ..., S.J. Connolly

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine

Citation: N Engl J Med 2021;384:2081-91

Link: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2101897


Clinical Question

Does concomitant left atrial appendage occlusion during cardiac surgery reduce ischemic stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation who continue to receive usual care including anticoagulation?

Bottom Line

Among patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery, concomitant left atrial appendage occlusion reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism by 33% compared to no occlusion, with a number needed to treat of 37 over 5 years. The procedure did not increase perioperative bleeding, heart failure, or mortality. The benefit was additive to ongoing anticoagulation therapy.

Major Points

  • Left atrial appendage occlusion reduced ischemic stroke/systemic embolism from 7.0% to 4.8% (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.85, P=0.001)
  • The treatment effect was more pronounced beyond 30 days (HR 0.58) than within the first 30 days post-surgery (HR 0.82)
  • 76.8% of participants continued oral anticoagulation at 3 years, indicating the benefit was additive to anticoagulation
  • 92.1% of participants received the assigned procedure with high compliance
  • No significant increase in heart failure hospitalization despite theoretical concerns about atrial natriuretic peptide
  • The NNT was 37 (95% CI 22-111) over 5 years to prevent one stroke
  • Multiple occlusion techniques were used successfully including cut-and-sew (55.7%), closure device (15.1%), stapler (11.2%), and closure from within (13.8%)
  • The trial was stopped early by the data safety monitoring board after the second interim analysis showed clear benefit

Design

Study Type: Multicenter randomized controlled trial

Randomization: 1

Blinding: Participants, trial personnel, and clinicians (other than surgeons) were blinded to trial-group assignments. Surgeons received confidential email with assignment just before surgery. Surgical reports indicated only enrollment in LAAOS III without specifying group assignment.

Enrollment Period: July 2012 to October 2018

Follow-up Duration: Mean 3.8 years (final follow-up January-March 2021)

Centers: 105

Countries: Canada, Italy, Germany, Czech Republic, Greece, Russia, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, UK, Brazil, and 15 others

Sample Size: 4770

Analysis: Time-to-event analysis using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank testing. Treatment effect estimated with Cox proportional-hazards model. Primary analysis included all participants who underwent cardiac surgery. Intention-to-treat, per-protocol, as-treated, and competing risk analyses also performed.


Inclusion Criteria

  • Age 18 years or older
  • Scheduled to undergo cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass
  • History of atrial fibrillation
  • CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2

Exclusion Criteria

  • Off-pump cardiac surgery
  • Mechanical-valve implantation
  • Heart transplantation
  • Surgery for complex congenital heart disease
  • Isolated implantation of left ventricular assist device
  • Previous surgery involving opening the pericardium
  • Previous implantation of a left atrial appendage closure device

Arms

FieldControlOcclusion
InterventionCardiac surgery without left atrial appendage occlusion; all participants received usual care including guideline-directed stroke prevention and anticoagulationSurgical left atrial appendage occlusion during cardiac surgery using amputation and closure (preferred), stapler closure, double-layer linear closure from within the atrium, or approved surgical occlusion device. Intraoperative TEE recommended to confirm closure. All participants received usual care including guideline-directed stroke prevention and anticoagulation.
DurationMean follow-up 3.8 yearsMean follow-up 3.8 years

Outcomes

OutcomeTypeControlInterventionHR / OR / RRP-value
First occurrence of ischemic stroke (including transient ischemic attack with positive neuroimaging) or non-cerebral systemic embolism. Strokes of undetermined cause were included as ischemic strokes.Primary168/2391 (7.0%)114/2379 (4.8%)0.670.001
Ischemic strokeSecondary164/2391 (6.9%)109/2379 (4.6%)0.66
Systemic embolismSecondary7/2391 (0.3%)6/2379 (0.3%)0.86
Any stroke or systemic embolismSecondary187/2391 (7.8%)127/2379 (5.3%)0.67
Any strokeSecondary176/2391 (7.4%)113/2379 (4.7%)0.63
Ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or death from any causeSecondary639/2391 (26.7%)601/2379 (25.3%)0.93
Death from any causeSecondary537/2391 (22.5%)538/2379 (22.6%)1
Myocardial infarctionSecondary56/2391 (2.3%)49/2379 (2.1%)0.87
Ischemic stroke or systemic embolism within first 30 daysSecondary65/2391 (2.7%)53/2379 (2.2%)0.82
Ischemic stroke or systemic embolism beyond 30 daysSecondary103/2242 (4.6%)61/2238 (2.7%)0.58
30-day mortalitySecondary95/2391 (4.0%)89/2379 (3.7%)0.94
Major bleeding eventAdverse267/2391 (11.2%)248/2379 (10.4%)0.93
Hospitalization for heart failureAdverse162/2391 (6.8%)183/2379 (7.7%)1.13
Reoperation for bleeding within 48 hoursAdverse95/2391 (4.0%)94/2379 (4.0%)0.99
Prolongation of index hospitalization due to heart failureAdverse14/2391 (0.6%)5/2379 (0.2%)0.36

Subgroup Analysis

The effect of LAA occlusion on reducing stroke/systemic embolism was consistent across all prespecified subgroups including sex, age (<72 vs >=72 years), rheumatic heart disease, type of oral anticoagulation at baseline (DOAC, VKA, neither), CHA2DS2-VASc score (<=4 vs >4), surgery type (valve procedure vs other), ablation of AF, history of hypertension, history of heart failure, LVEF (>=50% vs <50%), previous stroke/TIA/systemic embolism, and presence of AF or flutter on baseline ECG. No significant interactions were observed.


Criticisms

  • Lack of direct comparison between LAA occlusion and oral anticoagulation - cannot determine if occlusion could replace anticoagulation
  • Findings apply primarily to surgical occlusion performed as a concomitant procedure during cardiac surgery, not to stand-alone surgical or endovascular occlusion
  • Cannot discern whether all surgical closure methods are comparable in efficacy
  • Did not examine whether occlusion was sustained over follow-up (no imaging confirmation of persistent closure)
  • The trial was stopped early which may affect precision of effect estimates
  • High perioperative stroke rate (2.2-2.7% in first 30 days) reflects surgical population and may dilute early treatment effect
  • Information on occlusion method was only collected for 70.8% of patients in the occlusion group

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Stroke Prevention Intervention Network, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute through the Population Health Research Institute, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Request for Applications Program-Research Strategic Initiatives of Hamilton Health Sciences, Canadian Network and Centre for Trials Internationally, McMaster University Surgical Associates

Based on: LAAOS III (New England Journal of Medicine, 2021)

Authors: R.P. Whitlock, E.P. Belley-Cote, D. Paparella, ..., S.J. Connolly

Citation: N Engl J Med 2021;384:2081-91

Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.