Enhanced Thrombogenesis but Not Platelet Activation Is Associated With Transcatheter Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale in Patients With Cryptogenic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: No studies have yet determined whether antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is the more appropriate treatment after transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients with cryptogenic stroke. The objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the presence, degree, and timing of activation of the platelet and coagulation systems after transcatheter closure of PFO in patients with cryptogenic stroke. METHODS: Twenty-four consecutive patients (mean age, 44+/-10 years; 11 men) with previous cryptogenic stroke who had undergone successful transcatheter closure of PFO were included in the study. Prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F1+2) and thrombin-antithrombin III (TAT) were used as markers of coagulation activation, and soluble P-selectin and soluble CD40 ligand were used as markers of platelet activation. Measurements of all hemostatic markers were taken at baseline just before the procedure and at 7, 30, and 90 days after device implantation. RESULTS: F1+2 and TAT levels increased from 0.41+/-0.16 nmol/L and 2.34+/-1.81 ng/mL, respectively, at baseline to a maximal value of 0.61+/-0.16 nmol/L and 4.34+/-1.83 ng/mL, respectively, at 7 days, gradually returning to baseline levels at 90 days (P<0.001 for both markers). F1+2 and TAT levels at 7 days after PFO closure were higher than those obtained in a group of 25 healthy controls (P<0.001 for both markers). Levels of soluble P-selectin and soluble CD40 ligand did not change at any time after PFO closure. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter closure of PFO is associated with significant activation of the coagulation system, with no increase in platelet activation markers. These findings raise the question of whether optimal antithrombotic treatment after PFO closure should be short-term anticoagulant rather than antiplatelet therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".