Citations

Introduction: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) device for stroke prevention is a safe and effective alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The safety of performing LAAC on uninterrupted warfarin (UW) compared to interrupted warfarin (IW) is currently unknown. Hypothesis: Complication rates of performing LAAC on UW vs. IW will be similar. Methods: We reviewed the data from the second half of PROTECT-AF trial, PREVAIL trial, CAP and CAP2 registries. Patients were categorized to the UW group if INR on the day of the procedure was ≥2 and to the IW group if INR was <2. Procedural complications within 7 days of LAAC were reviewed. An association between complications and AC strategy was analyzed. Results: Data from 1580 patients were reviewed and 294 patients (18.6%) received LAAC on UW. The UW group had a mean INR of 2.4±0.4 and IW group had a mean INR of 1.3±0.3. There were several differences in baseline characteristics: lower BMI in the UW group (28.6±5.3 vs 29.5±6.0, p=0.01), fewer patients with hypertension in the UW group (87.1% vs 91.1%, p=0.04), lower HAS-BLED score in the UW group (2.0±1.0 vs 2.1±1.0, p<0.01), and more patients with persistent AF in the UW group (37.1% vs 26.4%, p<0.01). Overall, there were no significant differences in total or individual complication rates between the two groups (UW 5.1% vs IW 6.1%, p=0.59). Although not statistically significant, lower event rates were noted in the UW group for the following: stroke (0% vs 0.3%, p>0.99), pericardial effusion requiring intervention (1.7% vs 1.8%, p>0.99), pseudoaneurysm (0% vs 0.4%, p=0.59), hematoma (0% vs 0.2%, p>0.99), and device embolism (0% vs 0.2%, p=1.0). The UW group had statistically insignificant higher events rates of AV fistula (0.3% vs 0%, p=0.19) and major bleeding requiring transfusion (1% vs 0.5%, p=0.38). In addition, there was no significant difference in periprocedural ischemic stroke (0% vs 0.3%, p>0.99). Conclusion: In this retrospective analysis, no significant difference was observed in procedural complication rates when performing LAAC on UW vs. IW. These results suggest that LAAC can be safely performed without interruption of OAC.

Abstract Purpose: In this prospective trial, we sought to assess the feasibility of concurrent administration of ipilimumab and radiation as adjuvant, neoadjuvant, or definitive therapy in patients with regionally advanced melanoma. Patients and Methods: Twenty-four patients in two cohorts were enrolled and received ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses in conjunction with radiation; median dose was 4,000 cGy (interquartile range, 3,550–4,800 cGy). Patients in cohort 1 were treated adjuvantly; patients in cohort 2 were treated either neoadjuvantly or as definitive therapy. Results: Adverse event profiles were consistent with those previously reported with checkpoint inhibition and radiation. For the neoadjuvant/definitive cohort, the objective response rate was 64% (80% confidence interval, 40%–83%), with 4 of 10 evaluable patients achieving a radiographic complete response. An additional 3 patients in this cohort had a partial response and went on to surgical resection. With 2 years of follow-up, the 6-, 12-, and 24-month relapse-free survival for the adjuvant cohort was 85%, 69%, and 62%, respectively. At 2 years, all patients in the neoadjuvant/definitive cohort and 10/13 patients in the adjuvant cohort were still alive. Correlative studies suggested that response in some patients were associated with specific CD4+ T-cell subsets. Conclusions: Overall, concurrent administration of ipilimumab and radiation was feasible, and resulted in a high response rate, converting some patients with unresectable disease into surgical candidates. Additional studies to investigate the combination of radiation and checkpoint inhibitor therapy are warranted.