SynthesisClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2026
Comparison of left atrial appendage occlusion with medical treatment for non-valvular atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network and reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 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.
- Minimally Invasive Standalone Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion for Atrial Fibrillation: Procedural Approaches and Complications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a non-pharmacological strategy to prevent stroke and systemic emboli in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data regarding its safety and efficacy profile compared to different oral anti-coagulant regimens remain limited.
methodsA network meta-analysis compared LAAO, warfarin, and NOACs (standard dose [SD] and low-dose [LD]). Outcomes included all-cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and bleeding risk. Bayesian models with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and reconstructed individual patient data (IPD) were utilized.
resultsTwelve studies, including eight randomized controlled trials, were analyzed (13,049 patients with LD NOAC, 29,513 with SD NOAC, 29,611 with warfarin, and 2811 with LAAO). Warfarin was inferior for all-cause mortality compared to LAAO (OR 1.44 [95% CrI; 1.07-1.89]), LD NOAC (OR 1.13 [95% CrI; 1.01-1.26]), and SD NOAC (OR 1.11 [95% CrI; 1.02-1.20]). SUCRA analysis ranked SD NOAC as the most effective for stroke or systemic emboli prevention, LD NOAC as the most effective in preventing major bleeding and LAAO in preventing hemorrhagic stroke.
conclusionsSD NOACs were the most effective for preventing stroke or systemic embolism, while LD NOACs were the safest in terms of major bleeding. LAAO was comparable to NOACs and superior to warfarin in both safety and efficacy. Further studies are needed to clarify LAAO's role in the management of atrial fibrillation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40549033What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.