ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Trial emulation of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion versus direct oral anticoagulants.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (pLAAO) has increased in the past several years, as an alternative to oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The pivotal trials that led to pLAAO approval had small sample size and their populations differ from real-world patients who undergo pLAAO.
objectiveTo compare pLAAO to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Medicare beneficiaries with AF.
designWe created a retrospective cohort to emulate a target trial, from Jan 1st, 2015 to Dec 31st, 2020. Patients were identified from a 15% nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries. We mimicked randomization using propensity score matching, and assigned patients to receive pLAAO or DOACs in a 1:3 ratio. The primary efficacy composite outcome was stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or systemic thromboembolism. The primary safety outcome was bleeding events leading to hospital admission.
resultsAfter matching, we included 3,692 patients in the pLAAO group and 11,076 in the DOACs group. The mean age of patients was 78.5 years and 46.6% were women. The mean follow-up time was 2.4 years. The rate of the primary composite endpoint was not significantly different between pLAAO and DOACs (0.66/100 person-year vs. 0.47/100 person-year, HR: 1.38, 95% CI: 0.98 – 1.95). Bleeding events leading to hospitalization were significantly more common with pLAAO (5.30/100 person-year vs. 3.25/100 person-year, HR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.38 – 1.79).
conclusionsIn Medicare patients with AF, the rate of stroke, TIA or systemic thromboembolism was not significantly different between pLAAO and DOACs. Bleeding outcomes should be interpreted with caution, as residual confounding and variations in medication use over time may have influenced these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41886189What 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.