Outcomes of left atrial appendage closure versus oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

Ketut Angga Aditya Putra Pramana, Ni Gusti Ayu Made Sintya Dwi Cahyani, Yusra Pintaningrum, Basuki Rahmat
{"title":"Outcomes of left atrial appendage closure versus oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis of randomized control trials.","authors":"Ketut Angga Aditya Putra Pramana, Ni Gusti Ayu Made Sintya Dwi Cahyani, Yusra Pintaningrum, Basuki Rahmat","doi":"10.1186/s43044-024-00576-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical results of Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulation (OAC) in individuals with AF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical results of OAC to LAAC in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), we searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane. The included publications were subjected to meta-analyses using Review Manager v5.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In comparison to OAC, LAAC was linked with a decreased incidence of all stroke (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55-0.84; p = 0.0004). LAAC was also linked to a decreased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.55; p = 0.002). There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of ischemic stroke (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.59-1.84; p = 0.88) or systemic embolization (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.42-2.46; p = 0.97).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>According to our meta-analysis, the LAAC was less likely than the OAC to have a complete or hemorrhagic stroke. For the two groups, however, there was no difference in the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolization.</p>","PeriodicalId":74993,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology","volume":"76 1","pages":"144"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11496447/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-024-00576-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical results of Left Atrial Appendage Closure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulation (OAC) in individuals with AF.

Methods: For randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical results of OAC to LAAC in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), we searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane. The included publications were subjected to meta-analyses using Review Manager v5.4.

Results: In comparison to OAC, LAAC was linked with a decreased incidence of all stroke (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55-0.84; p = 0.0004). LAAC was also linked to a decreased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.55; p = 0.002). There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of ischemic stroke (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.59-1.84; p = 0.88) or systemic embolization (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.42-2.46; p = 0.97).

Conclusions: According to our meta-analysis, the LAAC was less likely than the OAC to have a complete or hemorrhagic stroke. For the two groups, however, there was no difference in the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolization.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心房颤动患者左心房阑尾关闭术与口服抗凝疗法的疗效:随机对照试验的最新荟萃分析。
背景:本研究的目的是比较左心房附壁关闭术(LAAC)和口服抗凝药(OAC)对房颤患者的临床效果:本研究旨在比较左心房附壁关闭术(LAAC)和口服抗凝药(OAC)对房颤患者的临床效果:我们检索了 PubMed、ScienceDirect 和 Cochrane 等网站,以查找在心房颤动(AF)患者中比较 OAC 和 LAAC 临床效果的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们使用Review Manager v5.4对纳入的文献进行了荟萃分析:与 OAC 相比,LAAC 可降低所有中风的发病率(OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55-0.84; p = 0.0004)。LAAC 还可降低出血性中风的风险(OR 0.20,95% CI 0.07-0.55;P = 0.002)。在缺血性中风(OR 1.05;95% CI 0.59-1.84;P = 0.88)或全身性栓塞(OR 1.02;95% CI 0.42-2.46;P = 0.97)方面,两组之间没有统计学意义上的差异:根据我们的荟萃分析,与 OAC 相比,LAAC 发生完全性或出血性卒中的几率更低。然而,两组患者发生缺血性卒中或全身性栓塞的风险没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unusual presentation of anomalous origin of the right pulmonary artery from the ascending aorta: case report. Effect of atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) on functional status and quality of life (QoL) in heart failure-cardiac resynchronization therapy population. Clinical and angiographic profile of left main coronary artery disease in patients with chronic coronary syndrome: a retrospective study. Comparative safety and effectiveness of cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brief comment on "Mitral valve repair and replacement in infectious endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcome".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1