Search

Background: Antithrombotic treatment (ATT) post-left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) remains controversial. Furthermore, most of the patients undergoing LAAO are at a very high bleeding risk., Aims: This study aimed to compare a simplified versus conventional ATT after LAAO in very high bleeding risk patients., Methods: This is a multicentre, retrospective study including very high bleeding risk patients, according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition, who underwent LAAO. These included patients at >4% risk of BARC 3 to 5 bleeding or >1% risk of intracranial bleeding after the procedure. Two groups were established based on the discharge ATT. The simplified group included single antiplatelet treatment or no treatment, and the conventional group comprised dual antiplatelet treatment or anticoagulation (combined or not with antiplatelet therapy)., Results: A total of 1,135 patients were included. The mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 4.5±1.5 and 3.7±1.0, respectively. There were no differences in the composite endpoint (death, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, device-related thrombus or major bleeding) between the 2 groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.11; p=0.188). Although the rate of major bleeding during the first year was numerically lower in the simplified group, it did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.41-1.10; p=0.104). Nonetheless, patients with previous major bleeding presented a significantly lower rate of major bleeding when using the simplified treatment (HR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.36-0.99; p=0.049)., Conclusions: In patients with very high bleeding risk, a simplified ATT after LAAO seems to be as effective as conventional protocols. Furthermore, patients with a history of major bleeding experienced a lower risk of major bleeding with the simplified ATT.

Background: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is the leading cause of death heart transplant (HT) recipients after the first year. We assessed the influence of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) in HT recipients on the development of CAV after 1 year of follow-up., Materials and Methods: From 2001 to 2005, we studied 72 patients who received a HT and survived for at least 1 years. All patients underwent coronary arteriography and intravascular ultrasonography at 1 year after HT. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy was defined as intimal proliferation of 0.5 mm or more. The analyzed CVRFs were age, sex, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and smoking. We also considered the heart disease that was the reason for HT. The statistical tests used in the univariate analysis were the t and chi(2) tests. Logistic regression was performed with the variables obtained at univariate analysis., Results: Mean (SD) recipient age at HT was 51 (9) years. Eighty patients (90.5%) were men. Dyslipidemia was significantly associated with a greater incidence of CAV at 1 year (68.3% vs 41.9%; P = .03). Ischemia, as opposed to all other causes, was also significantly associated with CAV (69.4% vs 44.4%; P = .03). Older age, hypertension, smoking history, and high body mass index were associated with a higher incidence of CAV, albeit without statistical significance. At multivariate analysis, dyslipidemia was the most significant CVRF (P = .045) for the development of CAV., Conclusions: Recipient dyslipidemia is a risk factor for the development of CAV in HT. The remaining traditional CVRFs are more weakly associated with CAV. After HT close monitoring of recipients with pretransplantation CVRFs is essential for early detection of CAV.