ArticleCJC open2025
DOAC Score for Predicting Clinical Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure.
Article in CJC open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- DOAC Score Versus HAS-BLED and ORBIT for Predicting Bleeding Events in Atrial Fibrillation on Direct Oral Anticoagulants.Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Left atrial appendage closure: Current status, unresolved issues, and future perspectives.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) score has been validated for assessing the bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data on DOAC scores in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive impact of the DOAC score on clinical events following LAAC and compare it with that of the HAS-BLED ( Methods: In this prospective, multicenter, observational study, patients with nonvalvular AF (NVAF) undergoing LAAC were categorized by the DOAC score into higher (HBR) and lower bleeding risk groups. The primary endpoints of all-cause death, stroke, and bleeding were evaluated at 3 months and 1 year. Results: Among 1464 patients (mean age 77.1 years; 67.6% male), the HBR group (923 patients) had a lower body mass index, more frequent comorbidities, and higher risk profiles for bleeding and stroke. The device, technical, and procedural success rates were high and similar between groups. At 1 year, the primary endpoint was higher in the HBR group (17.6% vs 12.4%, Conclusions: The DOAC score is a reliable predictor of composite outcomes, including death, stroke, and bleeding, in patients undergoing LAAC, demonstrating superior utility compared with the HAS-BLED score. This scoring system may improve risk stratification and patient management in daily clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: UMIN-ID: UMIN000038498 (OCEAN-LAAC registry).
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.