Key result
LAAO shows no difference versus DOACs for MACCE or NACE in NVAF.
Why the study?
Evidence comparing the long-term outcomes of percutaneous LAAO with DOACs in patients with nonvalvular AF remains limited.
Does percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) reduce major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events or net adverse clinical events compared to direct oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Meta-Analysis (n=5,890)
Does percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) reduce major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events or net adverse clinical events compared to direct oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
Relative Risk: 1.17 (95% CI 0.96–1.41)
LAAO demonstrates comparable efficacy to DOACs for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation while significantly reducing the risk of non-procedure-related bleeding over long-term follow-up.
Supports LAAO as DOAC alternative in nonvalvular AF without excess MACCE or NACE; extends RCT evidence to 3-year follow-up.
Background Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative strategy for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) with contraindications to long‐term oral anticoagulation therapy. However, evidence comparing the long‐term outcomes of LAAO with those of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) remains limited. Methods A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases through April 2026. Co‐primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; composite of cardiac death, stroke, or systemic embolism) and net adverse clinical events (NACE; composite of MACCE and non‐procedure‐related bleeding). Secondary endpoints included individual components of co‐primary endpoints, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, all‐cause death, major or clinically significant bleeding (procedure + non‐procedure related), and stroke or systemic embolism. The random‐effects model was used to generate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Results Four randomized controlled trials comprising 5890 AF patients and a median follow‐up of 3 years were included. There was no significant difference between LAAO and DOAC therapy in the risk of MACCE (RR 1.17; 95%CI 0.96–1.41; I 2 = 0%) or NACE (RR 0.89; 95%CI 0.65–1.24; I 2 = 85%). Both LAAO and DOAC therapy were similar in risk of cardiac death, stroke, systemic embolism, hemorrhagic stroke, ischemic stroke, all‐cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and pericardial effusion. LAAO was associated with a lower risk of non‐procedure‐related bleeding (RR 0.60; 95%CI 0.47–0.76; I 2 = 59%). Conclusion LAAO demonstrated efficacy comparable to DOAC therapy in reducing the risk of MACCE, NACE, and ischemic events, while significantly reducing the risk of non‐procedure‐related bleeding. Our findings support a tailored approach to stroke prevention in AF, wherein LAAO serves as an effective alternative for patients with contraindications to DOAC therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ezenna et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (n=5,890). Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) vs. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; composite of cardiac death, stroke, or systemic embolism) (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96-1.41). Left atrial appendage occlusion showed no significant difference vs DOACs for MACCE (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.96-1.41) or NACE (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.65-1.24) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: