Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyResearch article
Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure: The CHAMPION-like vs CLOSURE-like Patient Phenotype Framework
- narrative review
Authors' 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.
Study context
- Comparison
- percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
CHAMPION-AF: thromboembolic protection and non-procedural bleeding
- non-inferior thromboembolic protection and less non-procedural bleeding
Further findings
CLOSURE-AF: implantation success and stroke rates
- 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
Original publication
Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure: The CHAMPION-like vs CLOSURE-like Patient Phenotype Framework. Europace. Published 5 October 2026. doi:10.1093/europace/euag286
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it