Left Atrial Appendage Amputation for Atrial Fibrillation during Aortic Valve Replacement

Background. Occluding the left atrial appendage (LAA) during cardiac surgery reduces the risk of ischemic stroke; nonetheless, it is currently only softly recommended with “may be considered” by the current guidelines. We aimed to assess thromboembolic risk after LAA amputation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and aortic stenosis undergoing biological aortic valve replacement (AVR) as primary cardiac surgery. Methods. Two cohorts were generated retrospectively: patients with AF undergoing AVR alone or combined with revascularization either with LAA amputation or without. Data were collected from the hospital-specific data system. Follow-up was completed by telephone interview or in person. Thirty-day and follow-up results were compared in patients with vs. without LAA amputation. Results. One hundred and fifty-seven patients were investigated retrospectively, and seventy-four pairs were matched with regard to baseline characteristics. Patients with LAA amputation exhibited a lower incidence of cumulative and late ischemic stroke (6.4% vs. 25%, p = 0.028 and 3.2% vs. 20%, p = 0.008, respectively; hazard ratio 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.11; 0.84; p = 0.021) during follow-up of 48 months vs. patients without intervention during follow-up of 45 months, p = 0.494. No significant differences were observed in postoperative stroke, 2 (2.7%) vs. 3 (4.1%), p = 1.000, re-exploration for bleeding 3 (4.1%) vs. 6 (8.1), p = 0.494 or late pericardial effusion 2 (2.7%) vs. 3 (4.1%), p = 1.000, in-hospital 2 (2.7%) vs. 4 (5.4%), p = 0.681 and all-cause mortality 15 (23.8%) vs. 9 (15%), p = 0.315 in patients with vs. without LAA amputation, respectively. Conclusions. A combination of leading aortic stenosis and AF in patients undergoing isolated or combined biological AVR represents a subpopulation with excessive thromboembolic risk. Concomitant LAA amputation during cardiac surgery reduces the risk of ischemic stroke without posing an additional periprocedural risk for the patient. Therefore, the minimal invasive approach at the expense of omitting LAA amputation should be discouraged to maximize the clinical benefits of AVR in this setting.