MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026
Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Oral Anticoagulation for Prevention of Stroke or Systemic Embolism in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: An Updated Meta-Analysis of 7004 Patients Across Six Randomized Trials.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ahmed Aymen, Paryani Neha Saleem, Shakoor Muteia, Jaiswal Vikash, Golwala Harsh, Rosenberg Jonathan R, Metzl Mark D, Ricciardi Mark J, Lip Gregory Y H, Qamar Arman
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an emerging alternative for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are unsuitable for long-term oral anticoagulants (OACs). However, its efficacy and safety relative to OACs remain uncertain.
METHODS: Three databases were searched up to April 7, 2026, for randomized controlled trials comparing LAAC with OAC in patients with AF. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Six RCTs (n = 7004 patients) were analyzed. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) did not differ significantly between the LAAC and OAC groups (RR: 1.10 [0.87-1.39]; p = 0.42). The risk of ischemic SSE was significantly increased with LAAC (RR: 1.41 [1.07-1.85]; p = 0.02) compared with OAC. No significant differences were observed in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.94 [0.81-1.09]), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.91 [0.69-1.21]), non-cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.91 [0.75-1.12]), or hemorrhagic stroke (RR: 0.58 [0.29-1.17]). LAAC was associated with a similar risk of overall major bleeding (RR: 0.92 [0.77-1.09]) and low risk of non-procedural bleeding (RR: 0.61 [0.52-0.73]; p < 0.001) compared with OAC. Upon sensitivity analysis comparing LAAC with DOACs, the findings remained consistent across most clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSION: LAAC demonstrates comparable risks of SSE and major bleeding to OACs, but is associated with a higher risk of ischemic SSE and reduced non-procedural bleeding, supporting its use in selected patients at high risk for long-term bleeding while emphasizing individualized shared decision-making.
METHODS: Three databases were searched up to April 7, 2026, for randomized controlled trials comparing LAAC with OAC in patients with AF. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Six RCTs (n = 7004 patients) were analyzed. The risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) did not differ significantly between the LAAC and OAC groups (RR: 1.10 [0.87-1.39]; p = 0.42). The risk of ischemic SSE was significantly increased with LAAC (RR: 1.41 [1.07-1.85]; p = 0.02) compared with OAC. No significant differences were observed in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.94 [0.81-1.09]), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.91 [0.69-1.21]), non-cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.91 [0.75-1.12]), or hemorrhagic stroke (RR: 0.58 [0.29-1.17]). LAAC was associated with a similar risk of overall major bleeding (RR: 0.92 [0.77-1.09]) and low risk of non-procedural bleeding (RR: 0.61 [0.52-0.73]; p < 0.001) compared with OAC. Upon sensitivity analysis comparing LAAC with DOACs, the findings remained consistent across most clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSION: LAAC demonstrates comparable risks of SSE and major bleeding to OACs, but is associated with a higher risk of ischemic SSE and reduced non-procedural bleeding, supporting its use in selected patients at high risk for long-term bleeding while emphasizing individualized shared decision-making.