ReviewCureus2025
Impact of Age on Clinical Outcomes Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis And Systematic Review of Observational Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) offers an alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation; however, the impact of advanced age on outcomes remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of age on in-hospital and long-term outcomes following LAAO. A comprehensive search of PubMed and Google Scholar yielded 1,372 studies, of which seven met the inclusion criteria after screening and full-text review. Eligible studies stratified outcomes by age (<75 vs ≥75, <80 vs ≥80, or multilevel age groups), and we analyzed all-cause mortality, stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and major bleeding using relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Long-term mortality was significantly higher among older patients, with mortality rising from 32.4% at age 65-69 to 63.4% in those ≥85 (RR 1.96, 95%CI 1.90-2.03), and from 14.3% <80 to 38.8% ≥80 (RR 2.71, 95%CI 2.24-3.28). Pooled analysis demonstrated substantial heterogeneity for mortality (I² = 80.7%). Stroke/SE rates were modestly elevated with age, including 13.0% in ≥85 vs 5.3% at 65-69 (RR 2.45, 95%CI 2.00-3.00), with moderate heterogeneity across studies (I² = 63.9%). Major bleeding consistently increased in older groups, such as 18.4% ≥85 vs 12.0% at 65-69 (RR 1.53, 95%CI 1.35-1.72) and 22.6% ≥80 vs 12.1% <80 (RR 1.87, 95%CI 1.44-2.41), with high heterogeneity (I² = 83.4%). In-hospital mortality and stroke/SE were low overall but showed age-related increases in large cohorts. A funnel plot suggested no major publication bias. LAAO provides consistent stroke prevention across all ages, but older patients, particularly those ≥80-experience significantly higher mortality and bleeding risks. Age should not contraindicate LAAO but should guide individualized risk-benefit discussions, especially regarding bleeding management and long-term prognosis.
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.