Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026

Catheter Ablation in Combination With Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: February 26, 2013
Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation: Meta-Analysis of Randomized
Yi-Hsin Chan1, Wen-Han Cheng2, Yung-Hsin Yeh1
1The Cardiovascular Department, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan; College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, College of Medicine, Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Microscopy Core Laboratory, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Insights
Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) offers reduced bleeding compared to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for atrial fibrillation patients. However, LAAC may increase ischemic stroke risk, though major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage risks remain similar.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Medical Devices
Background:
- Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an emerging alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.
- Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are standard therapy, but bleeding risks necessitate alternative strategies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To conduct an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LAAC with DOACs.
- To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAAC versus DOACs for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.
Main Methods:
- Systematic search of RCTs comparing percutaneous LAAC with DOACs in atrial fibrillation patients from January 2012 to April 2026.
- Pooled relative risks (RRs) for efficacy and bleeding outcomes (stroke, death, intracranial hemorrhage) using random-effects models based on longest available follow-up.
Main Results:
- Four RCTs with 5,890 patients (2,949 LAAC, 2,941 DOACs) were analyzed with median follow-up of 36-42 months.
- No significant differences observed in all stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, all-cause death, or cardiovascular death.
- LAAC significantly reduced nonmajor bleeding and nonprocedure-related major/nonmajor bleeding, but showed a trend towards increased ischemic stroke risk (significant after excluding one trial). Major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage risks were similar.
Conclusions:
- LAAC demonstrates a significant reduction in nonmajor and nonprocedure-related bleeding compared to DOACs.
- The potential increase in ischemic stroke risk with LAAC warrants consideration.
- LAAC appears comparable to DOACs regarding major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage risk.
Background:
Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a potential alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.
Objectives:
We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing LAAC with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for efficacy and safety.
Methods:
We systematically searched from January 1, 2012, to April 3, 2026, for randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous LAAC with DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation. Using the longest available follow-up from each trial, we pooled efficacy and bleeding outcomes, including stroke, death, and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and pooled relative risks (RRs) with random-effects models.
Results:
Four randomized trials involving 5,890 patients were included, with 2,949 assigned to LAAC and 2,941 to DOAC therapy. The median follow-up ranged from 36 to 42 months. There were no significant differences in all stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, all-cause death, or cardiovascular death. LAAC was associated with a numerically higher risk of ischemic stroke (RR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.99-1.89; P = 0.06), which became significant (RR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.03-2.06; P = 0.03) after exclusion of the OPTION trial. LAAC significantly reduced all nonmajor (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.40-0.71; P < 0.0001) and nonprocedure-related major (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65-0.97; P = 0.02) and nonmajor bleeding (RR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.39-0.57; P < 0.0001), whereas risks of all major bleeding (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.81-1.17; P = 0.77) and ICH (RR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.45-1.26; P = 0.28) were similar.
Conclusions:
Compared with DOACs, LAAC reduced nonprocedure-related major and nonmajor bleeding, potentially at the cost of an increased risk of ischemic stroke, without significant differences in major bleeding or ICH.
Related Concept Videos
Anticoagulant Drugs: Vitamin K Antagonists and Direct Oral Anticoagulants
Warfarin, a prominent vitamin K antagonist family member, exerts its effect by inhibiting the enzyme VKORC1 (vitamin K epoxide reductase complex 1). By hindering this enzyme, warfarin...
Anticoagulant Drugs: Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care

