ReviewCureus2023
Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Left Atrial Appendage Closure and Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials and Observational Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists in dialysis patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Two investigators performed an online database search on PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from inception to October 31, 2023, without any language or time restrictions. Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and major bleeding events. Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis, enrolling 7,629 participants with AF (4,287 in the DOAC group and 3,342 in the LAAC group). The pooled analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients in the DOAC group compared to LAAC (relative risk (RR): 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50 to 2.34). The risk of cardiovascular mortality was 1.60 times higher in patients receiving DOACs compared to those receiving LAAC (RR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.12 to 2.28). The risk of stroke was not significantly different between the two groups (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.41). In conclusion, LAAC for AF patients proves to be safe and effective for stroke prevention, exhibiting a superior profile in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and major bleeding compared to oral anticoagulation (OAC). These findings prompt consideration of LAAC as a preferred treatment for cardiovascular event prevention in high-bleeding-risk patients.
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.