Skip to main content

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Versus Medical Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal
Journal of clinical medicine (Q1)
Published
15 July 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Muhammad Aslam Khan, Anza Muhammad, Sheeza Nawaz, Muhammad Khan Buhadur Ali, Muhammad Shahzaib, Aleena Sameen, et al.
PMID
42513444
DOI
10.3390/jcm15145529

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Hematology (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026).

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an established nonpharmacologic strategy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Its comparative effectiveness and safety relative to contemporary medical therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), remain uncertain following recent large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing catheter-based LAAO with medical therapy in AF patients. PubMed, CENTRAL, and ScienceDirect were searched from inception through May 2026. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects models. The primary outcome was the composite primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular death, all stroke/TIA, ischemic stroke/TIA, systemic embolism, major bleeding, and nonprocedural major bleeding. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2. Results: Six RCTs were included, contributing 7073 participants (3729 LAAO; 3344 medical therapy). LAAO was not associated with significant differences in the composite endpoint (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.85-1.23), all-cause death (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.79-1.31), cardiovascular death (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.67-1.29), all stroke/TIA (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.81-1.38), ischemic stroke/TIA (RR 1.24; 95% CI 0.88-1.76), systemic embolism (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.12-4.77), or total major bleeding (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.13). LAAO significantly reduced nonprocedural bleeding (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.46-0.63; p < 0.0001; I2 = 0.0%). Heterogeneity was low to moderate across outcomes. Conclusions: No significant differences were observed between LAAO and medical therapy for the composite endpoint, mortality, or thromboembolic outcomes; however, confidence intervals for ischemic stroke/TIA and systemic embolism remained wide and cannot exclude a clinically meaningful excess of thromboembolic events after LAAO. LAAO was associated with a substantial and consistent reduction in nonprocedural bleeding. These findings suggest LAAO may be considered an individualized alternative to oral anticoagulation for selected patients with high bleeding risk or anticoagulation intolerance, weighing upfront procedural risk against this bleeding benefit, while uncertainty for rare thromboembolic outcomes remains to be resolved.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.