Revisiting Left Atrial Appendage Closure Versus Oral Anticoagulants in Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation Management: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a significant public health problem due to its association with coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality, especially in the elderly. Therefore, traditional warfarin therapy, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), and the recent left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) have been compared as treatment approaches. In this regard, we aimed to synthesize the current evidence regarding the comparison these mentioned modalities in patients with AF. A comprehensive database search for records comparing LAAC and DOACs in patients with AF was conducted until December 15, 2023. An updated meta-analysis was conducted using fixed and random effect models to calculate odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Eleven studies were eligible that included a total of 68171 patients. Compared to DOACs, the LAAC group had a lower rate of hospital stay duration (MD -1.23; 95% CI -1.51 to -0.95;p< 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between LAAC and DOACs in terms of the composite outcome of stroke, systemic embolism, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke and thromboembolic events ischemic, major bleeding and cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.27-2.48,P= 0.73).Our meta-analysis showed a lower rate of hospital stay duration that favors LAAC. However, the risk of composite outcomes of stroke, systemic embolism, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, thromboembolic events, ischemic stroke, major bleeding, and cardiovascular mortality was similar between the two treatment groups.