Clinical Outcomes of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Versus Switch of Direct Oral Antcoagulant in Atrial Fibrillation: A Territory-Wide Retrospective Analysis

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Left Atrial Appendage Closure and Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials and Observational Studies

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Two investigators performed an online database search on PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from inception to October 31, 2023, without any language or time restrictions. Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and major bleeding events. Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis, enrolling 7,629 participants with AF (4,287 in the DOAC group and 3,342 in the LAAC group). The pooled analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients in the DOAC group compared to LAAC (relative risk (RR): 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.50 to 2.34). The risk of cardiovascular mortality was 1.60 times higher in patients receiving DOACs compared to those receiving LAAC (RR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.12 to 2.28). The risk of stroke was not significantly different between the two groups (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.41). In conclusion, LAAC for AF patients proves to be safe and effective for stroke prevention, exhibiting a superior profile in terms of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and major bleeding compared to oral anticoagulation (OAC). These findings prompt consideration of LAAC as a preferred treatment for cardiovascular event prevention in high-bleeding-risk patients.