ReviewCureus2026
Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Oral Anticoagulation for Stroke Prevention in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has emerged as a non-pharmacological alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). While early randomized trials established non-inferiority of LAAC versus warfarin, the comparative effectiveness of LAAC against contemporary direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) remains less well characterized. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing percutaneous LAAC with oral anticoagulation-either warfarin or DOACs-in adults with non-valvular AF. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception through May 2026. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism (SE), and cardiovascular death. The key secondary outcome was major bleeding. Five RCTs comprising 6,116 patients were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated no significant difference between LAAC and oral anticoagulation for the composite primary outcome (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.71-1.14; I²=34%). LAAC was associated with a statistically significant 24% reduction in major bleeding events compared with anticoagulation (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.94; I²=0%). Individual secondary outcomes, including cardiovascular death, stroke, and SE, were not significantly different between groups. Subgroup analysis by anticoagulant class suggested a larger composite efficacy benefit of LAAC over warfarin (RR 0.69) than over DOACs (RR 0.98), consistent with the established intracranial hemorrhage reduction conferred by DOACs relative to warfarin. In conclusion, LAAC achieves comparable thromboembolic protection to oral anticoagulation while significantly reducing major bleeding, supporting its role as a viable alternative in appropriately selected patients with AF, particularly those at elevated bleeding risk.
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.