ArticleBMJ open2026
Left atrial appendage closure versus direct oral anticoagulants after pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation: protocol for a multicentre, prospective, randomised, non-inferiority trial (PROMOTE study).
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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.
- Advances of Fully Biodegradable Poly-p-Dioxanone and Polylactic Acid-Based Polymers as Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices.Macromolecular bioscience · 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAtrial fibrillation (AF), with a prevalence of 1-2%, is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. AF is associated with a fivefold increased risk of cardioembolic events; approximately 20% of all strokes are caused by AF. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become the first-line treatment for AF. However, PVI cannot eliminate the residual stroke risk. Current guidelines recommend that anticoagulation be continued in this specific group of patients, regardless of the presence or absence of AF. In this large AF population post-PVI, who are considered to be in an earlier stage of AF, it is unknown whether left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) offers an alternative to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial will be a prospective, randomised, multicentre non-inferiority study comparing two treatment strategies in AF patients after atrial ablation. Patients will be randomly assigned to either percutaneous LAAC (group A) or DOAC treatment (group B) in a 1:1 ratio; both sequential and concomitant planned ablation with or without LAAC are accepted. Randomisation will be conducted using web-based randomisation software. A total of 1012 participants (506 patients per group) will be enrolled. The primary effectiveness measure will be the occurrence of any of the specified events within 24 months after randomisation: stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic thromboembolism, cerebral haemorrhage, other major haemorrhages (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥2), cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of Shanghai Chest Hospital, China (KS(Y)20287). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The trial will follow the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Confidentiality will be maintained with anonymised, securely stored data. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2000036538.
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.