Evaluation of the WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage (LAA) Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy

NCT ID: NCT01182441

Last Updated: 2018-07-26

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

PHASE3

Total Enrollment

407 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2010-11-30

Study Completion Date

2017-11-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter study to provide additional information on the safety and efficacy of the WATCHMAN LAA Closure Technology. The purpose of the PREVAIL study was to confirm the efficacy endpoint as demonstrated in the PROTECT AF pivotal study and to further demonstrate that the WATCHMAN LAA Closure Technology is safe and effective in subjects with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who require anticoagulation therapy for potential thrombus formation.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Atrial Fibrillation Stroke

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

WATCHMAN

Subjects assigned to receive the WATCHMAN device.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

WATCHMAN Device

Intervention Type DEVICE

WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology

Warfarin

Subjects assigned to warfarin therapy.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Warfarin

Intervention Type DRUG

Warfarin dosage prescribed by study physician to adequately maintain an INR of 2.0-3.0

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

WATCHMAN Device

WATCHMAN Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology

Intervention Type DEVICE

Warfarin

Warfarin dosage prescribed by study physician to adequately maintain an INR of 2.0-3.0

Intervention Type DRUG

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Coumadin

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Paroxysmal, persistent or permanent non-valvular AF
* Eligible for long-term warfarin therapy
* Eligible to come off warfarin therapy
* Calculated CHADS2 score of 2 or greater. Also patients with a CHADS2 score of 1 may be included if any of the following apply:

* Female age 75 or older
* Baseline LVEF ≥ 30 and \< 35%
* Aged 65-74 and has diabetes or coronary artery disease
* Aged 65 or greater and has congestive heart failure

Exclusion Criteria

* Contraindicated/allergic to aspirin
* Indicated for clopidogrel therapy or has taken clopidogrel within 7 days prior to enrollment
* History of atrial septal repair or has an ASD/PFO device
* Implanted mechanical valve prosthesis
* NYHA Class IV CHF
* Resting heart rate \> 110 bpm
* Participated previously in the PROTECT AF or CAP Registry studies


* LVEF \< 30%
* Existing pericardial effusion \> 2mm
* High risk PFO
* Significant mitral valve stenosis
* Complex atheroma with mobile plaque of the descending aorta and/or aortic arch
* Cardiac tumor
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Boston Scientific Corporation

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

David R. Holmes, M.D.

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Mayo Clinic

Vivek Y. Reddy, M.D.

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Mercy Gilbert Medical Center

Gilbert, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Arizona Heart Rhythm Research Center

Scottsdale, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Foundation for Cardiovascular Medicine

La Jolla, California, United States

Site Status

Scripps Green

La Jolla, California, United States

Site Status

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Los Angeles, California, United States

Site Status

Orange County Heart

Orange, California, United States

Site Status

St. John's Hospital / Pacific Heart

Santa Monica, California, United States

Site Status

Zasa Clinical Research

Atlantis, Florida, United States

Site Status

Baptist Hospital of Miami

Miami, Florida, United States

Site Status

Florida Hospital

Orlando, Florida, United States

Site Status

Emory University

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Site Status

North Shore University

Evanston, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Iowa Heart Center

Des Moines, Iowa, United States

Site Status

Central Baptist Hospital

Lexington, Kentucky, United States

Site Status

Massachusetts General Hospital

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

Lahey Clinic

Burlington, Massachusetts, United States

Site Status

University of Michigan Medical Center

Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States

Site Status

William Beaumont

Royal Oak, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Abbott Northwestern Hospital

Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Mayo Clinic

Rochester, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Cardiology Associates of N. Mississippi

Tupelo, Mississippi, United States

Site Status

St. Luke's Hospital

Kansas City, Missouri, United States

Site Status

St. John's Mercy

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Bryan LGH

Lincoln, Nebraska, United States

Site Status

Englewood Hospital and Medical Center

Englewood, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

New York University Medical Center

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Columbia University Medical Center

New York, New York, United States

Site Status

Carolinas Medical Center

Charlotte, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Lindner Clinical Trial Center

Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Cleveland Clinic

Cleveland, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Moffitt Heart & Vascular

Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

St. Thomas Research Institute

Nashville, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia

Austin, Texas, United States

Site Status

Baylor Research Institute

Dallas, Texas, United States

Site Status

Methodist Hospital

Houston, Texas, United States

Site Status

Intermountain Medical Center

Salt Lake City, Utah, United States

Site Status

Fletcher Allen

Burlington, Vermont, United States

Site Status

Swedish Medical Center

Seattle, Washington, United States

Site Status

St. Luke's Hospital

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Dukkipati SR, Holmes DR Jr, Doshi SK, Kar S, Singh SM, Gibson D, Price MJ, Natale A, Mansour M, Sievert H, Houle VM, Allocco DJ, Reddy VY. Impact of Peridevice Leak on 5-Year Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Aug 2;80(5):469-483. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.062.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 35902169 (View on PubMed)

Friedman DJ, Du C, Wang Y, Agarwal V, Varosy PD, Masoudi FA, Holmes DR, Reddy VY, Price MJ, Curtis JP, Freeman JV. Patient-Level Analysis of Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Practice Versus Clinical Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 May 9;15(9):950-961. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.02.029.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 35512918 (View on PubMed)

Brouwer TF, Whang W, Kuroki K, Halperin JL, Reddy VY. Net Clinical Benefit of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Pooled Analysis of the Randomized PROTECT-AF and PREVAIL Studies. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Dec 3;8(23):e013525. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.013525. Epub 2019 Nov 22.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 31752643 (View on PubMed)

Price MJ, Reddy VY, Valderrabano M, Halperin JL, Gibson DN, Gordon N, Huber KC, Holmes DR Jr. Bleeding Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure Compared With Long-Term Warfarin: A Pooled, Patient-Level Analysis of the WATCHMAN Randomized Trial Experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Dec 28;8(15):1925-1932. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.08.035. Epub 2015 Nov 25.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 26627989 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

CT1004

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

CHAMPION-AF Clinical Trial
NCT04394546 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING NA
HEAL-LAA Clinical Trial
NCT05809596 COMPLETED NA