ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2024
Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion and risk of stroke, hospitalized bleeding and death in Medicare beneficiaries.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAmong patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), a nonpharmacologic option (e.g., percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion [LAAO]) is needed for patients with oral anticoagulant (OAC) contraindications. Among beneficiaries in the Medicare fee-for-service coverage 20% sample databases (2015-18) who had AF and an elevated CHA
methodsPatients undergoing percutaneous LAAO were matched to up to five OAC users by sex, age, date of enrollment, index date, CHA
resultsMedian follow-up was 10.3 months. After multivariable adjustments, no significant difference for risk of stroke or death was noted when patients with percutaneous LAAO were compared with OAC users (HRs [95% CIs]: 1.14 [0.86-1.52], 0.98 [0.86-1.10]). There was a 2.94-fold (95% CI: 2.50-3.45) increased risk for hospitalized bleeding for percutaneous LAAO compared with OAC use. Among patients 65 to <78 years old, those undergoing percutaneous LAAO had higher risk of stroke compared with OAC users. No association was present in those ≥78 years.
conclusionIn this analysis of real-world AF patients, percutaneous LAAO versus OAC use was associated with similar risk of death, nonsignificantly elevated risk of stroke, and an elevated risk of bleeding in the post-procedural period. Overall, these results support results of randomized trials that percutaneous LAAO may be an alternative to OAC use for patients with contraindications.
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.