SynthesisClinical cardiology2025
Comparing Effectiveness and Safety of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Next Frontiers in Stroke Prevention: Optimizing Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Atrial Fibrillation: Current Devices, Imaging-Guided Strategies, and Emerging Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Intraprocedural guidance using fluoroscopy alone for left atrial appendage closure: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAtrial fibrillation-related stroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. The comparative effectiveness and safety of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices, compared with one another and with anticoagulation, is unclear.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of all clinical trials comparing the Watchman and Amplatzer Amulet LAAC devices with each other or with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The primary comparison was between LAAC devices with secondary comparisons to anticoagulation. The primary effectiveness outcomes were any stroke and all-cause death. Safety outcomes included any thromboembolism, device embolization, and pericardial effusion.
resultsThere were 476 articles identified from the search and 6 eligible RCTs were included (n = 3666). There was no difference in the risk of stroke with Amulet versus Watchman (RR = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.64-3.46, I
conclusionIn this NMA, the Amulet and Watchman LAAC devices were associated with similar risks for stroke, mortality, thromboembolism, and device embolization. Pericardial effusion risk was higher with Amulet than Watchman.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.