ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Patients Refusing Oral Anticoagulation: The LAAC-REFUSAL Study.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients refusing oral anticoagulation (OAC) despite medical recommendations is unknown. We aim to assess the efficacy and the safety of LAAC in patients refusing OAC.
methodsData on consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous LAAC between 2009 and 2022 in 4 European centers were collected and patients undergoing LAAC due to refusal of OAC (refusal group) were compared with patients receiving LAAC for more established indications (control group). The primary end point of the study was the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or systemic embolism. The secondary end points included technical success and procedural complications. Events during follow-up were compared with those predicted by CHA2DS2VASC and hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile International Normalized Ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly (HASBLED) score risks.
resultsOf the 2649 patients submitted to LAAC, 119 were performed due to OAC refusal (4.5%). Two-hundred-thirty-eight (8.9%) control patients were identified. Refusal as compared with the control group included younger and lower-risk patients. At 3 years, the primary end point was significantly lower (4.2% versus 17.2%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.14-0.99;
conclusionsIn this multicenter cohort of consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation submitted to LAAC, OAC refusal appeared as an infrequent indication. In this subgroup, LAAC was confirmed to be feasible and safe. The ischemic outcomes rates at 3 years are promising. Further studies are needed to better understand the potential effects of preferring LAAC over OAC.
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.