Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Stroke. 2007;38:e77
Published online before print August 2, 2007, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.489310
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
38/9/e77    most recent
STROKEAHA.107.489310v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stöllberger, C.
Right arrow Articles by Schneider, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stöllberger, C.
Right arrow Articles by Schneider, B.

(Stroke. 2007;38:e77.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.


Letters to the Editor

Arguments Against Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion for Stroke Prevention

Claudia Stöllberger, MD

2nd Medical Department, Krankenanstalt Rudolfstiftung, Wien, Austria

Josef Finsterer, MD

Krankenanstalt Rudolfstiftung, Wien, Austria

Birke Schneider, MD

Klinik für Kardiologie, Sana Kliniken Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany


An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.
 

To the Editor:

With great interest we read the article by Onalan et al about left atrial appendage (LAA) exclusion for stroke prevention in nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation (AF).1 We share the author’s concerns about the hazards of this procedure and would like to emphasize additional arguments.

There is no evidence that thromboembolism in AF exclusively derives from LAA thrombi detected by transesophageal echocardiography. The prevalences (4% to 21%) of LAA-thrombi were found in studies of acutely sick patients, patients before cardioversion, cardiac surgery or after recent embolism. Contrarily, when prospectively investigating clinically stable outpatients with AF and no recent embolism by transesophageal echocardiography, the prevalence of LAA thrombi was only 2.5%, and during a follow-up of 58 months, LAA thrombus did not predict stroke/embolism.2

The benefit of LAA exclusion in preventing stroke/embolism has never been proven by a prospective randomized trial. A retrospective study of 205 patients undergoing transesophageal echocardiography after mitral valve replacement suggests a reduced rate of ischemic events after LAA ligation.3 In a further study of 437 patients undergoing open heart surgery and LAA exclusion, no later strokes were attributed to AF and no thrombi were detected. Unfortunately, this study reports neither duration and methods of follow-up nor the number of patients investigated and the antithrombotic therapy applied.4 In contrast, 2 trials including 136 and 320 patients undergoing surgical LAA closure at the time of mitral valve surgery revealed either no benefit or even an increased risk of thromboembolic events.5,6

How can incomplete surgical LAA exclusion be . . . [Full Text of this Article]