Why the study?
Do direct oral anticoagulants reduce stroke, systemic embolism, and major hemorrhage compared to vitamin K antagonists in patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion?
Population
Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion pooled from 21…
Comparison
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)
Design
Meta-analysis
Key result
Direct oral anticoagulants significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.88) compared to vitamin K antagonists following left atrial appendage occlusion, with comparable thromboembolic protection.
Authors
Loading...
Supports preferring DOACs over VKAs to lower serious bleeding risk; confirms safety advantage in updated meta-analysis.
Meta-Analysis
Do direct oral anticoagulants reduce stroke, systemic embolism, and major hemorrhage compared to vitamin K antagonists in patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion?
Odds Ratio: 0.88 (95% CI 0.8–0.98)
Following left atrial appendage occlusion, DOACs offer comparable thromboembolic protection to VKAs but with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding and overall major adverse events.
Dai et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) was evaluated on Major bleeding (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.98). Direct oral anticoagulants significantly reduced the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.88) compared to vitamin K antagonists following left atrial appendage occlusion, with comparable thromboembolic protection.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: