Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure: The CHAMPION-like vs CLOSURE-like Patient Phenotype Framework

Clicks: 26
ID: 331547
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #39 of 136 articles by views in EP Europace

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 136 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
AIMS: The near-simultaneous publication of CHAMPION-AF and CLOSURE-AF produced apparently discordant evidence regarding percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. We aimed to reconcile these findings through a phenotype-based framework and identify the determinants of net clinical benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: This narrative review integrates randomized trials, registries, consensus documents, and guidelines, focusing on patient selection, procedural risk, post-implant antithrombotic therapy, endpoint construction, competing mortality, and time to benefit. CHAMPION-AF evaluated LAAC against direct oral anticoagulation in an elective, anticoagulation-eligible population with lower bleeding risk, demonstrating non-inferior thromboembolic protection and less non-procedural bleeding. Conversely, CLOSURE-AF enrolled an older, multimorbid population with substantial renal dysfunction, previous bleeding, and high competing mortality. Although implantation success and stroke rates were comparable between treatment groups, early procedural and antithrombotic-related bleeding, a composite endpoint incorporating procedural events, and limited survival reduced the opportunity for delayed benefit. The highly selective recruitment pathway further limits generalisability. These findings define a continuum from the "CHAMPION-like" patient, with sufficient physiological reserve and life expectancy to realise long-term benefit, to the "CLOSURE-like" patient, in whom frailty and competing risk may outweigh the advantage of appendage exclusion. CONCLUSION: LAAC efficacy is not determined by device performance alone but by matching the intervention to patient phenotype and time horizon. Selection should integrate thromboembolic and bleeding risk, frailty, renal function, post-implant treatment tolerance, and expected survival. Future trials require transparent screening data, time-sensitive endpoints, landmark analyses, and competing-risk methods.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220468650 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Sergio Berti, Philippe Garot, Giancarlo Trimarchi, Jens Erik Nielsen‐Kudsk, Gregory Y. H. Lip, Carsten Skurk, Valeria Caso, Lucas V.A. Boersma, Domenico Giovanni Della Rocca, Giuseppe Boriani, Alan John Camm
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal EP Europace
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/europace/euag286
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euag286
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.