Left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation and haemodialysis: outcomes from an international, multicentric registry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients receiving haemodialysis (HD) face increased bleeding risks, so the net benefit of stroke prophylaxis by oral anticoagulation (OAC) is ill defined. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) might serve as a suitable alternative to OAC for stroke prevention in this high-risk cohort. Objective To determine the safety and clinical efficacy of LAAC in HD patients with AF. Methods In an international multi-center (n=9) registry, the clinical details were compiled from all HD+AF patients who underwent LAAC. Results The cohort included 147 patients: age 72.6 ± 10.4 yrs, 73% male, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.5 ± 1.5, HAS-BLED 4.7 ± 1.2, prior stroke/TIA 22,5%, prior major bleed 57,8%. The pre-LAAC anticoagulation regimen was heterogeneous with a wide array of at least 12 different combinations of medications utilized. A total of 149 procedures were performed and LAAC was successful in 98% (146 of 149), with a median procedure time of 43 (30-66) minutes. The most common device was Watchman (61%), followed by Amulet (23,3%). The rate of major complications was 5,4% (8), same as the rate of minor complications (5,4%), leading to an overall complication rate of 10,7% (16/149) including one fatal bleed the day after implantation, 4 (2.7%) cardiac tamponades of which 3 were treated with pericardiocentesis and one surgery, and 2 device dislodgements requiring percutaneous retrieval followed by successful reimplantation. Most patients were discharged on DAPT (61,6%). At a median of 61 days follow-up, imaging was performed in 83% of patients, revealing: only 2 (1.7%) peri-device leaks ≥5 mm, and no DRT. Subsequently, anticoagulation was shifted to SAPT so that SAPT emerged as the predominant anticoagulation regimen representing 165,9 patient years (py) of usage followed by DAPT (41,8 py). Over the follow-up of 222,9 py, the incidence of ischemic stroke was 0,9% per year (2 strokes in total), reflecting an 88% relative risk reduction (p<0,001) compared with the calculated stroke rate of 7,4% for patients with a similar CHA2DS2VASc score and no anticoagulation. Similarly, the rate of major bleeding events (defined as BARC score ≥3) was 4,5% per year, signifying a 55% relative risk reduction (p=0,023) compared to the expected rate of patients on VKA therapy, based on a comparable HAS-BLED score. Event tough time on SAPT was nearly four times longer than on DAPT, the number of major bleeding events was similar (SAPT: 5; DAPT: 4). Conclusion In light of these findings LAAO emerges as a promising solution for this unique patient cohort. By mitigating the risks of both bleeding complications associated with anticoagulation and the threat of stroke in the absence of anticoagulation, LAAO represents a well-balanced and effective therapeutic strategy for these individuals. However, the procedural complication rate was elevated compared to that observed in other LAAC cohorts, and requires further study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».