ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs. Oral Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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.
- Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion vs Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation: Network Meta-Analyses.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While oral anticoagulants (OACs) remain the cornerstone of stroke prevention, left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a potential alternative, particularly for patients with high bleeding risk or contraindications to long-term anticoagulation. Methods: Multiple databases were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and four trials were shortlisted. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Outcomes assessed included stroke (all, ischemic, hemorrhagic), systemic embolism, major bleeding, non-procedure-related bleeding, and mortality. Risk of bias was evaluated using Rob 2.0, and meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan software. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as risk ratios (RR) while continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 3116 participants were analyzed across outcomes. LAAC significantly reduced non-procedure-related bleeding (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.37-0.61; Conclusions: LAAC offers a viable alternative to standard anticoagulation in selected AF patients with comparable efficacy and a particular benefit in reducing non-procedure-related bleeding and mortality advantages.
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.