Review links combined heart procedures to fewer clots but more drainage-requiring fluid
The evidence came from 15 studies of people with atrial fibrillation, and the authors say randomized trials are needed to confirm the comparison.
Moderate evidenceReviewInterpret with caution
Medical disclaimer: This article summarizes research findings and is for informational purposes only. It is not medical advice.
Editorial illustration — not from the study.
A meta-analysis compared two approaches for people with atrial fibrillation: closing the left atrial appendage alone, or combining that procedure with pulmonary vein isolation, which is intended to help restore a regular heart rhythm. Across 15 studies involving 335,013 patients, the combined approach was associated with fewer systemic thromboembolisms during follow-up, but with more cases of fluid around the heart that required drainage near the procedure time.
The review also found that leaks around the implanted closure device differed depending on when they were assessed: they were less common immediately after the procedure but more common during later echocardiographic follow-up in the combined-procedure group. Several other outcomes, including death and major bleeding, did not differ significantly between groups.
The question reviewed
Researchers performed a structured search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies comparing combined left atrial appendage closure plus pulmonary vein isolation with left atrial appendage closure alone in people with atrial fibrillation. The meta-analysis included 15 studies reporting data from 335,013 patients: 11,839 received the combined procedures and 323,174 received left atrial appendage closure alone. The abstract describes the available data as observational and heterogeneous; the exact designs of all included studies are unknown from the provided information.
Key conclusions
Compared with left atrial appendage closure alone, combined left atrial appendage closure and pulmonary vein isolation was associated with fewer systemic thromboembolisms during follow-up: odds ratio 0.76, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.60 to 0.96. Pericardial effusion requiring drainage around the procedure was more frequent with the combined approach: odds ratio 1.72, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.26 to 2.34.
Peri-device leaks were less common immediately after the procedure in the combined group, with an odds ratio of 0.57, but more common on follow-up echocardiography, with an odds ratio of 1.56. The review found no statistically significant differences in mortality, major bleeding, device-related blood clots, or pericardial effusion that did not require drainage. These are relative comparisons; the abstract does not provide the absolute event rates needed to show the size of the differences for an individual patient.
Who this may apply to
The findings may be relevant to adults with atrial fibrillation who are being evaluated for left atrial appendage closure, particularly when considering whether pulmonary vein isolation is performed at the same time. They do not establish which option is appropriate for any individual, and applicability may be limited because the included studies and patient groups may have differed.
What this could mean
The review addresses whether adding pulmonary vein isolation to left atrial appendage closure is associated with different clotting and procedure-related outcomes. It suggests a possible trade-off between fewer systemic thromboembolisms during follow-up and more drainage-requiring fluid around the heart near the procedure. These findings may help define questions for future research, but they do not establish that the combined approach causes better or worse outcomes, or determine which approach is suitable for a particular person. The authors call for randomized controlled trials because such trials can better address differences between treatment groups that observational studies may not fully account for.
Limitations & evidence assessment
The review combined studies with potentially different designs, patients, procedures, follow-up periods, and outcome definitions. The abstract describes the underlying data as heterogeneous and does not provide enough detail to assess the quality of each study or the absolute risks for patients. Because the findings are primarily based on observational evidence, differences between patient groups or treatment centers could explain some of the associations. The authors state that randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the results.
Why this evidence level: This was a meta-analysis of 15 studies involving more than 335,000 patients, which provides a broad evidence base. However, the abstract describes the underlying evidence as heterogeneous observational data, and randomized trials are still needed to confirm whether the differences are caused by the combined procedure.
Evidence levels are editorial estimates derived from study metadata — they are not clinical appraisals.
This review analyzed human studies comparing two treatments given before surgery for locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: FLOT chemotherapy and CROSS chemoradiotherapy. The pooled estimate favored FLOT for overall survival, but the groups had similar three-year survival, tumor response, surgical margins, and several major perioperative outcomes.
A systematic review examined whether Passiflora edulis, commonly known as passion fruit, is linked with lower blood pressure. It included six preclinical studies and two human trials; the animal and laboratory findings were generally more extensive than the human evidence. The authors reported possible blood-pressure reductions but emphasized that the human studies were small, varied in the extracts used, and short in duration.
Researchers studied 96 people with high-risk, locally advanced rectal cancer in a single-center phase II clinical trial. The treatment combined chemotherapy, short-course radiation, and a targeted drug selected for each study cohort. Overall, 40% had a complete response, but the study did not establish how this approach compares with other treatments.
