ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Left atrial appendage closure devices: a contemporary review of techniques, tips and tricks.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects approximately 3%-5% of adults and is projected to double in prevalence by 2060, significantly increasing the burden of thromboembolic stroke. This risk is largely attributed to thrombus formation within the left atrial appendage (LAA), particularly in nonvalvular AF, where the LAA's trabeculated anatomy, diverse morphologies (e.g., chicken wing, windsock, cactus, cauliflower), and impaired contractility allows for blood stasis and thrombogenesis. As a result, the LAA has become a focus for stroke prevention strategies. This review demonstrates current evidence on LAA closure by discussing patient selection, anatomical feasibility, procedural workflow, imaging guidance (transesophageal echocardiography vs. intracardiac echocardiography), device platforms (Amplatzer Amulet, Watchman 2.5, Watchman FLX/FLX Pro), and complication profiles. P procedural success rates exceed 95%, with improving safety profiles. Nonetheless, adverse events such as pericardial effusion, device-related thrombus (DRT), peri-device leak (PDL), device embolization, and periprocedural stroke remain important considerations. Post-implant antithrombotic strategies are evolving beyond the traditional warfarin/aspirin → DAPT → SAPT pathway toward more individualized regimens, including simplified DOAC or antiplatelet-based approaches tailored to bleeding and thrombotic risk especially in complex scenarios like concurrent coronary stenting. Ongoing device innovations (e.g., FLX Pro, expanded size matrices, thromboresistant coatings), CT-led surveillance algorithms, and randomized studies of post-implant pharmacotherapy aim to reduce DRT/bleeding, harmonize follow-up, and expand indications. Collectively, these advances refine patient-centered LAA closure by aligning anatomic complexity, procedural technique, and pharmacology to improve stroke prevention and safety in AF.
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.