ReviewThe Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management2026
Left Atrial Appendage Closure: Past, Present, and Future.
Review in The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management, 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 an important alternative strategy for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), particularly when long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) is contraindicated or poorly tolerated. Initially developed as a surgical technique based on ligation or excision of the left atrial appendage, LAAC has progressively shifted toward refined, minimally invasive transcatheter approaches. Randomized and observational data have established non-inferiority to warfarin, and non-inferiority compared with direct oral anticoagulants has also been suggested in selected high-risk cohorts and is currently under prospective evaluation in pivotal trials. At the same time, indications for LAAC are expanding beyond the classical high-bleeding-risk population, now encompassing patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and those with only moderate thromboembolic risk but intolerance to OAC. Parallel advances in device design aimed at improving anatomical conformability, sealing performance, and surface biocompatibility seek to reduce peri-device leak (PDL), device-related thrombus (DRT), and bleeding and may allow for simplified or shortened post-procedural antithrombotic regimens. This narrative review summarizes the historical evolution of LAAC from surgical to contemporary transcatheter solutions, outlines key clinical evidence versus medical therapy, and discusses emerging implant-based and implant-free technologies. As evidence accumulates from ongoing randomized controlled trials, LAAC may transition from a niche intervention to a more widely adopted, guideline-supported component of AF management. However, broader implementation will depend on robust demonstration of long-term safety and efficacy, including clarification of PDL-, DRT-, and bleeding-related trade-offs, to define when LAAC can serve not only as an alternative to OAC but also as a tailored option for selected NVAF patients.
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.