Clinical outcomes of bivalirudin versus heparin in atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion

Background Prior studies have suggested that patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) referred for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) are confronted with considerable risk of periprocedural thromboembolism and hemmorhagic events. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of bivalirudin during LAAO. Methods This retrospective, observational study included 420 AF patients who were evaluated as being at high risk of stroke or bleeding and indicated for LAAO at our center between June 2018 and June 2019 (158 with bivalirudin and 262 with heparin). The primary outcome was the incidence of any bleeding within 48 hours of LAAO. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between 48 hours and 60 days post-procedure and overall bleeding events during follow up. Results No significant difference was observed between bivalirudin and heparin for major periprocedural bleeding (1.27% for bivalirudin vs. 2.29% for heparin, P=0.716) or minor bleeding (1.27% vs. 1.15%, P>0.9). At 48 hours post-procedure, strokes occurred at a rate of 0.63% in the bivalirudin group and 1.15% in the heparin group (P>0.9), and one case treated with bivalirudin developed systemic embolization. At 60 days, the rates of MACE (1.90% vs. 2.29%, P>0.9), a device-related thrombus (DRT) (1.27% vs. 1.52%, P>0.9), and overall bleeding events (5.06% vs. 4.96%, P=0.963) were comparable between the 2 cohorts. Upon Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, early safety during the 60-day follow-up was 93.67% in the bivalirudin group and 91.60% in the heparin group (P=0.570). Conclusions Bivalirudin has a comparable safety and efficacy profile to heparin as an intraprocedural anticoagulant, but currently, it should still be reserved for patients in which heparin is contraindicated.