ReviewThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2024
Outcomes of left atrial appendage closure versus oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized control trials.
Review in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare the clinical results of Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulation (OAC) in individuals with AF.
methodsFor randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical results of OAC to LAAC in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), we searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane. The included publications were subjected to meta-analyses using Review Manager v5.4.
resultsIn comparison to OAC, LAAC was linked with a decreased incidence of all stroke (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55-0.84; p = 0.0004). LAAC was also linked to a decreased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.55; p = 0.002). There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of ischemic stroke (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.59-1.84; p = 0.88) or systemic embolization (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.42-2.46; p = 0.97).
conclusionsAccording to our meta-analysis, the LAAC was less likely than the OAC to have a complete or hemorrhagic stroke. For the two groups, however, there was no difference in the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolization.
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.