ReviewCureus2025
Efficacy and Safety of Combined Catheter Ablation and Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The combination of catheter ablation (CA) and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has emerged as a potential therapeutic strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of the combined approach compared with CA alone. We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 10, 2025. Studies comparing CA plus LAAC with CA alone were included. Of 1,066 identified articles, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up duration ranged up to 24 months, with reported CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores ranging from 2.2 to 4.3 and HAS-BLED scores from 2.0 to 3.7. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in thromboembolic events between the combined and control groups (RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.10-1.83, I² = 0%), and no significant difference in arrhythmia recurrence (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.84-1.24, I² = 28%). However, the combined approach was associated with a significantly higher risk of procedural complications (RR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.01-2.59, I² = 0%). These findings suggest that adding LAAC to CA does not reduce thromboembolic events or arrhythmia recurrence but may increase the risk of procedural complications. Given the predominance of observational studies and limited randomized controlled trial (RCT) data, larger high-quality trials are needed to more definitively assess the role of combined CA and LAAC in AF management.
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.