Discriminating factors excluding patients from a catheter-based left atrial appendage closure and an outcome analysis of non-intervened and intervened patients

IntroductionThe catheter-based left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has evolved as an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients in whom long-term OAC is contraindicated. In daily practice, however, a sizeable number of patients who have been referred for an LAAC do not receive this intervention. This study aimed primarily to investigate the factors deterring the practice of an LAAC in referred AF patients, and secondarily to compare the complication rates of intervened patients with those who had refused the intervention within one year.Material and methodsThis retrospective single-centre study includes 200 patients. After a thoroughly conducted clinical selection process, 161 of these patients (80.5%) were excluded from receiving an LAAC intervention.ResultsAn analysis comparing these patients to those receiving an LAAC reveales that a higher proportion of intervened patients had suffered a prior gastrointestinal bleeding (48.7 vs. 28.0%; p = 0.013) as well as a haemorrhagic stroke (12.8 vs. 2.5%; p = 0.015), and was not anticoagulated at the time of presentation (35.9 vs. 14.9%; p = 0.006). The main reason for not conducting the procedure was patient refusal (62.1%) followed by multimorbidity (16.8%). The annual rate of ischaemic strokes and bleedings among patients refusing the intervention was 2.1% and 29.5%, respectively, and this was not statistically different from the intervened patients (each p > 0.05).ConclusionsThe reasons why patients did not undergo the catheter-based LAAC were mainly reluctance for the procedure and multimorbidity. Furthermore, it could be assumed that the potential benefit of the LAAC may not be realised within the first year.