Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

AnchorMan LAA closure device non-inferior to Watchman 2.5 in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillationTrial shows AnchorMan device works like Watchman for stroke risk

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that AnchorMan demonstrated non-inferiority to Watchman 2.5 for clinical success and LAA occlusion in atrial fibrillation.

This multicentre randomized trial evaluated the AnchorMan LAA closure device compared to the Watchman 2.5 device in 216 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation at high risk of ischaemic stroke.

The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as freedom from ischaemic/haemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, cardiovascular or unexplained death at 12 months. AnchorMan demonstrated non-inferiority to Watchman for this endpoint, with both groups achieving a success rate of 98.1% (p>0.99; 95% CI: -3.9 to 3.5).

A secondary efficacy endpoint was echocardiography-defined LAA occlusion (peridevice leak <5 mm) at 12 months. AnchorMan was non-inferior to Watchman for this outcome, with both groups achieving a rate of 100% (95% CI: -3.60 to 3.50).

Safety profiles were similar between the two groups, with low and comparable rates of all-cause death, stroke, major bleeding, and device-related complications. A limitation of this study is its open-label design. AnchorMan met pre-specified non-inferiority endpoints for both primary clinical success and secondary LAA occlusion compared to Watchman 2.5.

Researchers conducted a multicenter trial to compare two different devices used to treat non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The study focused on patients who were at high risk of suffering an ischemic stroke. They compared the AnchorMan LAA closure device against the Watchman 2.5 device.

The results showed that both devices performed equally well over a 12 month period. Both the AnchorMan and the Watchman achieved a 98.1% success rate in keeping patients free from stroke, blood clots, and other major cardiovascular events. Additionally, both devices were successful at closing the left atrial appendage.

Safety data showed that rates of death, stroke, and major bleeding were low and similar for both groups. However, it is important to note that this was an open-label trial, which means the researchers knew which device each patient received. Because this study is relatively small with 216 participants, patients should talk to their doctor to decide which device is best for their specific needs.

What this means for you:
The AnchorMan device showed similar success rates and safety profiles to the Watchman device for stroke prevention.

Common questions

How effective is the AnchorMan device for stroke prevention?

The study found that the AnchorMan device was non-inferior to the Watchman 2.5 device. Both devices showed a 98.1% success rate at 12 months, meaning patients were free from ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and other major cardiovascular events.

Is the AnchorMan device safe for patients with atrial fibrillation?

The trial reported that rates of all-cause death, stroke, major bleeding, and device-related complications were low and similar between both the AnchorMan and Watchman groups. You should consult your doctor to discuss these safety results in your specific case.

How does AnchorMan compare to the Watchman device?

In this trial of 216 patients, the AnchorMan was found to be non-inferior to the Watchman. Both devices achieved a 100% success rate for closing the left atrial appendage and had similar clinical outcomes over the 12 month follow-up period.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 108
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up12.0 mo
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is an alternative to chronic oral anticoagulation to reduce stroke risk in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). AIMS: The SAFE-PROTECT trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the AnchorMan, a novel LAA closure device, compared with the Watchman 2.5 device for patients with AF at high risk of ischaemic stroke. METHODS: SAFE-PROTECT was a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial of patients with non-valvular AF at high risk of ischaemic stroke, randomised 1:1 to LAA closure with the AnchorMan or the Watchman device. The 12-month primary endpoint was clinical success (freedom from ischaemic/haemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, cardiovascular or unexplained death); the secondary efficacy endpoint was echocardiography-defined LAA occlusion (peridevice leak <5 mm) at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients were randomised to either an AnchorMan (n=108) or to a Watchman (n=108) device. The AnchorMan was non-inferior to Watchman for the primary endpoint (98.1% vs 98.1%;p>0.99; difference -0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.9 to 3.5; p=0.0004) and the powered secondary efficacy endpoint of LAA closure (100% vs 100%; difference 0%; 95% CI: -3.60 to 3.50; p=not applicable). The rates of all-cause death, stroke, major bleeding, and device-related complications were low and similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with non-valvular AF at high risk of ischaemic stroke, the AnchorMan device met its prespecified non-inferiority primary clinical success and secondary LAA occlusion endpoints compared with the Watchman 2.5 device. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT04479722.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.