ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 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.
- "Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Medical Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials".Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- The Next Frontiers in Stroke Prevention: Optimizing Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Atrial Fibrillation: Current Devices, Imaging-Guided Strategies, and Emerging Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLeft atrial appendage (LAA) closure is an alternative to oral anticoagulants (OAC) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but comparative evidence remains inconsistent. This study systematically evaluates the efficacy and safety of LAA closure versus OAC in AF patients.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched (PSM) studies published up to 30 September 2025. Treatment effects were estimated using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and a random-effects model was applied for all analyses.
resultsFifteen studies (17,116 AF patients) were included, comprising 4 RCTs, 3 prospective PSM studies, and 8 retrospective PSM studies. Compared with OAC, LAA closure significantly reduced the composite endpoint (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.66-0.95;
conclusionsIn AF patients, LAA closure significantly reduces mortality and a composite clinical endpoint compared to OAC, with similar risks of stroke and major bleeding. It is a favorable alternative for patients unsuitable for long-term anticoagulation.
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.