Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39119987›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2024

Left Atrial Appendage Closure Compared With Oral Anticoagulants for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Angelo Oliva, Anna Maria Ioppolo, Mauro Chiarito, Alberto Cremonesi, Alessia Azzano, Eligio Miccichè, Andrea Mangiameli, Francesco Ariano, Giuseppe Ferrante, Bernhard Reimers and 6 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Comparative evaluation of left atrial appendage occlusion and oral anticoagulation: a Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Potential ofFrontiers in immunology · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Adherence to oral thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation: an overview for clinicians.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Review
  12. A double paradox: end-stage renal disease-high thromboembolic and bleeding risk management using a device with risks of thromboembolism and bleeding.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Angelo OlivaCardiovascular Department Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital Bergamo Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0561-7563
Anna Maria IoppoloCardiovascular Department Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital Bergamo Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6002-064X
Mauro ChiaritoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.
Alberto CremonesiCardiovascular Department Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital Bergamo Italy.
Alessia AzzanoCardiovascular Department Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital Bergamo Italy.
Eligio MiccichèCardiovascular Department Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital Bergamo Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7907-7128
Andrea MangiameliCardiovascular Department Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital Bergamo Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8630-7817
Francesco ArianoCardiovascular Department Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital Bergamo Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8734-6180
Giuseppe FerranteDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9175-1464
Bernhard ReimersDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9890-5582
Philippe GarotInstitut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud (ICPS), Hôpital Privé Jacques Cartier Ramsay-Santé Massy France.ORCID 0009-0001-8960-7006
Nicolas AmabileInstitut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud (ICPS), Hôpital Privé Jacques Cartier Ramsay-Santé Massy France.ORCID 0000-0001-9092-4458
Roxana MehranThe Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5546-262X
Gianluigi CondorelliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0481-6843
Giulio StefaniniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Humanitas University Pieve Emanuele MI Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3558-6967
Davide CaoCardiovascular Department Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital Bergamo Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7755-4069

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPercutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has been suggested as an alternative to long-term oral anticoagulation for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, but comparative data remain scarce. We aimed to assess ischemic and bleeding outcomes of LAAC compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the prevention of cardioembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND

resultsEmbase and MEDLINE were searched for randomized trials comparing LAAC, VKAs, and DOACs. The primary efficacy end point was any stroke or systemic embolism. Treatment effects were calculated from a network meta-analysis and ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Seven trials and 73 199 patients were included. The risk of the primary end point was not statistically different between LAAC versus VKAs (odds ratio [OR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.62-1.50]) and LAAC versus DOACs (OR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.73]). LAAC and DOACs resulted in similar risk of major or minor (OR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.61-1.42]) and major bleeding (OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.58-1.46]); however, after exclusion of procedural bleeding, bleeding risk was significantly lower in those undergoing LAAC. Both LAAC and DOACs reduced the risk of all-cause death  compared with VKAs (LAAC versus VKAs: OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.91]; DOACs versus VKAs: OR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.85-0.95], respectively). DOACs ranked as the best treatment for stroke or systemic embolism prevention (66.9%) and LAAC for reducing major bleeding (63.9%) and death (96.4%).

conclusionsAs a nonpharmacological alternative to oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, LAAC showed similar efficacy and safety compared with VKAs or DOACs. Prospective confirmation from larger studies is warranted.

Indexed as

AnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationLeft Atrial Appendage ClosureAdministration, OralHemorrhageHumansRisk FactorsStrokeTreatment OutcomeAnticoagulantsatrial fibrillationbleedingleft atrial appendage closureoral anticoagulationstroke

Identifiers

PMID39119987
PMCPMC11963956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.