ArticleJournal of atrial fibrillation2018
Does Left Atrial Appendage Closure Reduce Mortality? A Vital Status Analysis of the Randomized PROTECT AF and PREVAIL Clinical Trials.
Article in Journal of atrial fibrillation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spontaneously occluded left atrial appendage in a patient with atrial fibrillation and stroke: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Compared with warfarin, left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) reduced mortality in an analysis of the PROTECTAF and PREVAIL trials. However, these data were limited by patient drop-out.We sought to estimatethe mortality benefit with LAACusing updated vital status information.In PROTECT AF and PREVAIL, 227 of 1114 randomized subjects failed to complete 5-year follow-up. Centers were manually queried for updated vital status on 76 subjects (33%).During median follow-up 5.0 years (interquartile range 3.8, 5.1), 112 of 732 LAAC subjects (15.3%) and 79 of 382 controls (20.7%) died. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality with LAAC compared with warfarin was 0.70 (95% CI 0.53-0.94, p=0.017).Subgroup analyses suggested that subjects <75 years and those with higher CHA2DS2-VASc score, history of transient ischemic attack or stroke, and permanent AF derived particular benefit, although interaction terms were not significant.The number needed to treat(NNT) with LAAC to prevent one death over 5 years was 16 (95% CI 10-82). Despite competing mortality risks in this elderly cohort, updated vital status data from PROTECT AF and PREVAIL revealed that LAAC was associated with 30% improved survival compared with warfarin, with an NNT of 16.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.