Tom 13, Nr 6 (2018)
CHOROBY STRUKTURALNE SERCA
Opublikowany online: 2019-02-04

dostęp otwarty

Wyświetlenia strony 813
Wyświetlenia/pobrania artykułu 2158
Pobierz cytowanie

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

Leczenie przeciwkrzepliwe po przezskórnym zamknięciu uszka lewego przedsionka

Paweł Kralisz1, Marek Grygier2
Kardiol Inwazyjna 2018;13(6):18-22.

Streszczenie

Przezskórne zamknięcie uszka lewego przedsionka (LAAO, left
atrial appendage occlusion) zmniejsza ryzyko udaru mózgu
w grupie chorych z migotaniem przedsionków o etiologii niezastawkowej
i wyraźnie ogranicza liczbę powikłań krwotocznych
poprzez eliminację konieczności długotrwałego leczenia
przeciwzakrzepowego u większości chorych. Jednak w okresie
bezpośrednio po zabiegu LAAO konieczne jest przejściowe, ograniczone
czasowo, stosowanie terapii przeciwkrzepliwej. Jakość
i długość optymalnej terapii po LAAO pozostają przedmiotem
badań. Obecnie schemat podwójnej terapii przeciwpłytkowej
w okresie pierwszych trzech miesięcy i następnie kwasem
acetylosalicylowym przynajmniej przez rok jest rutynowo
stosowany u wszystkich pacjentów po LAAO, zapewniając
skuteczną ochronę przed udarem przy ograniczonej liczbie
powikłań krwotocznych.

Artykuł dostępny w formacie PDF

Pokaż PDF Pobierz plik PDF

Referencje

  1. Ostermayer SH, Reisman M, Kramer PH, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage transcatheter occlusion (PLAATO system) to prevent stroke in high-risk patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation: results from the international multi-center feasibility trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46(1): 9–14.
  2. Björck S, Palaszewski Bo, Friberg L, et al. Atrial fibrillation, stroke risk, and warfarin therapy revisited: a population-based study. Stroke. 2013; 44(11): 3103–3108.
  3. O'Brien EC, Holmes DN, Ansell JE, et al. Physician practices regarding contraindications to oral anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: findings from the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry. Am Heart J. 2014; 167(4): 601–609.e1.
  4. https://wybory2018.pkw.gov.pl/.
  5. Willey V, Franchino-Elder J, Fu AC, et al. Treatment and persistence with oral anticoagulants among newly diagnosed patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a retrospective observational study in a US commercially insured and Medicare Advantage population. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(6): e020676.
  6. Reddy VY, Doshi SK, Kar S, et al. PREVAIL and PROTECT AF Investigators. 5-Year Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: From the PREVAIL and PROTECT AF Trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(24): 2964–2975.
  7. Holmes DR, Doshi SK, Kar S, et al. Left Atrial Appendage Closure as an Alternative to Warfarin for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(24): 2614–2623.
  8. Schmidt B, Betts TR, Sievert H, et al. EWOLUTION Investigators. Efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure with WATCHMAN in patients with or without contraindication to oral anticoagulation: 1-Year follow-up outcome data of the EWOLUTION trial. Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14(9): 1302–1308.
  9. 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(10): 1170–1179.
  10. Kar S, Hou D, Jones R, et al. Impact of Watchman and Amplatzer devices on left atrial appendage adjacent structures and healing response in a canine model. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7(7): 801–809.
  11. Schwartz RS, Holmes DR, Van Tassel RA, et al. Left atrial appendage obliteration: mechanisms of healing and intracardiac integration. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3(8): 870–877.
  12. Landmesser U, Tondo C, Camm J, et al. Left atrial appendage occlusion with the AMPLATZER Amulet device: one-year follow-up from the prospective global Amulet observational registry. EuroIntervention. 2018; 14(5): e590–e597.
  13. Schmidt B, Betts TR, Sievert H, et al. EWOLUTION Investigators. Efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure with WATCHMAN in patients with or without contraindication to oral anticoagulation: 1-Year follow-up outcome data of the EWOLUTION trial. Heart Rhythm. 2017; 14(9): 1302–1308.
  14. Main ML, Fan D, Reddy VY, et al. Assessment of Device-Related Thrombus and Associated Clinical Outcomes With the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Device for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (from the PROTECT-AF Trial). Am J Cardiol. 2016; 117(7): 1127–1134.
  15. Lempereur M, Aminian A, Saw J, et al. Device-associated thrombus formation after left atrial appendage occlusion: A systematic review of events reported with the Watchman, the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug and the Amulet. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 90(5): E111–E121.
  16. Reddy VY, Holmes D, Doshi SK, et al. 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(4): 417–424.
  17. Belgaid DR, Khan Z, Zaidi M, 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. Int J Cardiol. 2016; 219: 177–179.
  18. Dukkipati SR, Kar S, Holmes DR, et al. Device-Related Thrombus After Left Atrial Appendage Closure. Circulation. 2018; 138(9): 874–885.
  19. Enomoto Y, Gadiyaram VK, Gianni C, 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.
  20. Bergmann MW, Betts TR, Sievert H, 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(7): 877–884.
  21. Reddy VY, Möbius-Winkler S, Miller MA, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device in patients with a contraindication for oral anticoagulation: the ASAP study (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(25): 2551–2556.
  22. Urena M, Rodés-Cabau J, Freixa X, et al. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with the AMPLATZER cardiac plug device in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and contraindications to anticoagulation therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(2): 96–102.
  23. 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): 2003–2011.
  24. Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Buchbinder M, et al. The Assessment of the Watchman Device in Patients Unsuitable for Oral Anticoagulation (ASAP-TOO) trial. Am Heart J. 2017; 189: 68–74.
  25. Osmancik P, Tousek P, Herman D, et al. PRAGUE-17 Investigators. Interventional left atrial appendage closure vs novel anticoagulation agents in patients with atrial fibrillation indicated for long-term anticoagulation (PRAGUE-17 study). Am Heart J. 2017; 183: 108–114.
  26. Chun KR, Bordignon S, Urban V, et al. Left atrial appendage closure followed by 6 weeks of antithrombotic therapy: a prospective single-center experience. Heart Rhythm. 2013; 10(12): 1792–1799.
  27. Korsholm K, Nielsen KM, Jensen JM, et al. Transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high bleeding risk using aspirin alone for post-implant antithrombotic therapy. EuroIntervention. 2017; 12(17): 2075–2082.