Why the study?
Observational data on combined LAAC and PVI are heterogeneous, and data regarding its risk-benefit profile remain scarce.
Does combined LAAC and PVI reduce systemic thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to LAAC alone?
Meta-Analysis (n=335,013)
Yes
Does combined LAAC and PVI reduce systemic thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to LAAC alone?
Combined LAAC and PVI offers a meaningful thromboembolic benefit over LAAC alone, but requires careful patient selection due to a higher risk of periprocedural pericardial effusion.
May support combined LAAC+PVI for thromboembolism reduction in selected AF patients; extends meta-analytic data but leaves safety trade-offs open for RCTs.
Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, primarily originating from the left atrial appendage (LAA). Percutaneous LAA closure (LAAC) reduces appendage-borne thromboembolism, while pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) restores sinus rhythm. Observational data on the combined one-stop procedure are heterogeneous, and data on its risk-benefit profile remain scarce. Thus, a meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of combined LAAC+PVI versus LAAC-only. Methods A structured systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science was performed for studies comparing outcomes of AF patients undergoing combined LAAC+PVI or LAAC-only. Results Fifteen studies reporting data from 335,013 patients (11,839 LAAC+PVI; 323,174 LAAC-only) were included. Combined LAAC+PVI was associated with significantly fewer systemic thromboembolisms at follow-up (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60–0.96, I 2 = 1%) compared to LAAC-only. However, periprocedural pericardial effusion requiring drainage was significantly more frequent in the combined group (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.26–2.34, I 2 = 0%). Peri-device leaks were significantly less common immediately post-procedure (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35–0.92, I 2 = 19%), but significantly more frequent on follow-up echocardiography (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.14–2.12, I 2 = 71%). Mortality, major bleeding, device-related thrombus, and pericardial effusion without drainage did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusion Combined LAAC+PVI was associated with fewer systemic thromboembolisms than LAAC-only, but a higher periprocedural risk of pericardial effusion requiring drainage and divergent temporal behaviour of peri-device leaks. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rattka et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation (n=335,013). Combined left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) vs. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) only was evaluated on Systemic thromboembolism at follow-up (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.96).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: