Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025
Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Chen, Zhu Dan, Nan Jinliang, Zhang Danyang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage (LAA) closure is an alternative to oral anticoagulants (OAC) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but comparative evidence remains inconsistent. This study systematically evaluates the efficacy and safety of LAA closure versus OAC in AF patients.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched (PSM) studies published up to 30 September 2025. Treatment effects were estimated using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and a random-effects model was applied for all analyses.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies (17,116 AF patients) were included, comprising 4 RCTs, 3 prospective PSM studies, and 8 retrospective PSM studies. Compared with OAC, LAA closure significantly reduced the composite endpoint (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.66-0.95; p = 0.010), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.49-0.69; p < 0.001), and cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.44-0.67; p < 0.001). Risks of any stroke (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.86-1.31; p = 0.555), ischemic stroke (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.85-1.17; p = 0.972), hemorrhagic stroke (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.54-1.70; p = 0.879), and major bleeding (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.67-1.04; p = 0.112) were not significantly different between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In AF patients, LAA closure significantly reduces mortality and a composite clinical endpoint compared to OAC, with similar risks of stroke and major bleeding. It is a favorable alternative for patients unsuitable for long-term anticoagulation.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched (PSM) studies published up to 30 September 2025. Treatment effects were estimated using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and a random-effects model was applied for all analyses.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies (17,116 AF patients) were included, comprising 4 RCTs, 3 prospective PSM studies, and 8 retrospective PSM studies. Compared with OAC, LAA closure significantly reduced the composite endpoint (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.66-0.95; p = 0.010), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.49-0.69; p < 0.001), and cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.44-0.67; p < 0.001). Risks of any stroke (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.86-1.31; p = 0.555), ischemic stroke (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.85-1.17; p = 0.972), hemorrhagic stroke (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.54-1.70; p = 0.879), and major bleeding (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.67-1.04; p = 0.112) were not significantly different between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In AF patients, LAA closure significantly reduces mortality and a composite clinical endpoint compared to OAC, with similar risks of stroke and major bleeding. It is a favorable alternative for patients unsuitable for long-term anticoagulation.