Key result
LAAC offers a feasible alternative to anticoagulation for preventing thromboembolism and minimizing bleeding in AF.
Why the study?
Oral anticoagulation reduces thromboembolic risk in AF but increases bleeding risk, motivating the review of left atrial appendage closure as an alternative mechanical intervention.
Does left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) reduce thromboembolic events and bleeding risk compared to oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Comparison
LAAC vs pharmacologic therapy
Design
Narrative review
Authors
Loading...
Supports LAAC consideration in select AF patients unsuitable for OAC; extends narrative evidence while leaving definitive practice change open to further RCTs.
Does left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) reduce thromboembolic events and bleeding risk compared to oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation?
This narrative review highlights the evolution and current evidence for transcatheter left atrial appendage closure as an alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.
Nagasaka et al. (2023) conducted a review in Atrial fibrillation. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) vs. Oral anticoagulation therapy was evaluated. Left atrial appendage closure is a feasible alternative to pharmacologic intervention for preventing thromboembolic events and minimizing bleeding risk in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: