Evidence Hub

"Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Medical Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials"

Al-Janabi AAH, Al-Shammari AS, Hageen AW, Al-Tuaama AZH, Al-Ibraheem AMT, Shahzaib M, Rathi D, Hamzah KA et al.

Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2026

7,004 participants

Abstract

We aim to compare the impact of left atrial appendage closure vs. medical therapy on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation, focusing on key clinical outcomes relevant to thromboembolic prevention. We conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing LAAC with medical therapy in AF adults. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrial. gov, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2026. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, any stroke, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, major bleeding, systemic embolism and cardiac death. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Reconstructed individual patient-level survival data from published Kaplan-Meier curves were used for time-to-event analyses. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) assessed the conclusiveness of cumulative evidence. Six randomized controlled trials involving 7004 patients were included. LAAC demonstrated comparable outcomes to medical therapy for all-cause mortality, any stroke, major bleeding, systemic embolism, and cardiac death. There was a non-significant trend toward increased ischemic stroke and reduced hemorrhagic stroke with LAAC. Reconstructed time-to-event analyses showed similar cumulative incidence of stroke and bleeding outcomes over follow-up. TSA demonstrated that the required information size was not reached for any major endpoint, indicating that current evidence remains underpowered and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7,004 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free