Title |
The Efficacy and Safety of the WATCHMAN Device in LAA Occlusion in Patients with Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation Contraindicated to Oral Anticoagulation: A Focused Review
|
---|---|
Published in |
Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, June 2018
|
DOI | 10.5761/atcs.ra.18-00014 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
David Nehemiah Majule, Chang Jing, Willfredius Mugishagwe Rutahoile, Felix Samuel Shonyela |
Abstract |
The standard treatment for stroke risk patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is the use of oral anticoagulants (OACs). However, a substantial number of patients have relative or absolute contraindications to OACs due to concerns of major bleeding risk and other adverse effects while using oral anticoagulation therapy. Recently, occurrences of exclusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) in patients with contraindication to anticoagulation therapy are widely expanding worldwide, causing major contentious discussions. The LAA is the commonest place of thrombus formation; therefore, the concept of LAA occlusion in reducing stroke and other embolic events in NVAF patients is very important. The current understanding of the available evidence on efficacy and safety of LAA closure (LAAC) with the Watchman device in patients contraindicated to OACs is the major aim of this focused review. After reviewing a significant body of literature, a world experience with no randomized trials, it is suggested that Watchman device implantation is effective and safe in high-risk patients with NVAF contraindicated to OACs therapy. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 9% |
Researcher | 4 | 8% |
Other | 4 | 8% |
Other | 12 | 23% |
Unknown | 16 | 30% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 49% |
Engineering | 2 | 4% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
Other | 3 | 6% |
Unknown | 19 | 36% |