ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion versus Novel Oral Anticoagulation for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation-One-Year Survival.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Review
- Review
- Left atrial appendage occlusion should be offered only to select atrial fibrillation patients.Heart rhythm O2 · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim To compare the 1-year survival rate of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) following left atrial appendage occluder (LAAO) implantation vs. treatment with novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs).
methodsWe have conducted an indirect, retrospective comparison between LAAO and NOAC registries. The LAAO registry is a national prospective cohort of 419 AF patients who underwent percutaneous LAAO between January 2008 and October 2015. The NOACs registry is a multicenter prospective cohort of 3138 AF patients treated with NOACs between November 2015 and August 2018. Baseline patient characteristics were retrospectively collected from coded diagnoses of hospitalization and outpatient clinic notes. Follow-up data was sorted from coded diagnoses and the national civil registry. Subjects were matched according to propensity score. Baseline characteristics were compared using Chi-Square and student's
resultsThis study included 114 subjects who underwent LAAO implantation and 342 subjects treated with NOACs. The mean age of participants was 77.9 ± 7.44 and 77.1 ± 11.2 years in the LAAO and NOAC groups, respectively (
conclusionsIn a pooled analysis of two registries, we found a significantly lower risk for 1-year mortality in patients with AF who were implanted with LAAO than those treated with NOACs. This finding was more prominent in patients with impaired renal function. Future prospective direct studies should further investigate the efficacy and adverse effects of both treatment strategies.
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.