Key result
LAAC provides non-inferior thromboembolic protection versus OACs in AF while reducing long-term bleeding.
Why the study?
OACs remain standard for stroke prevention in AF but carry bleeding risk, intolerance, and adherence issues, prompting evaluation of LAAC as an alternative.
Does percutaneous left atrial appendage closure prevent thromboembolic events and reduce bleeding compared to oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Population
Patients with AF across four pivotal RCTs
Comparison
Percutaneous LAAC vs OAC therapy including DOACs and warfarin
Design
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Authors
Loading...
LAAC non-inferior to OACs for stroke prevention with lower bleeding; confirms alternative role in AF.
Systematic Review
Does percutaneous left atrial appendage closure prevent thromboembolic events and reduce bleeding compared to oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation?
LAAC provides non-inferior thromboembolic protection compared with oral anticoagulants while reducing long-term bleeding events, making it a viable alternative for patients with atrial fibrillation at elevated bleeding risk.
(293917) et al. (2026) conducted a systematic review in Atrial Fibrillation. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) vs. Oral anticoagulants (OACs) was evaluated on Composite endpoint of all-cause death, stroke, or systemic embolism (varies by trial). Left atrial appendage closure provided non-inferior thromboembolic protection compared with oral anticoagulants while reducing long-term bleeding events in selected patients with AF.