Magnetic resonance imaging of the left atrial appendage post pulmonary vein isolation: Implications for percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in performing left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion at the time of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedures. However, to date there has been no description of the acute changes to the LAA immediately following pulmonary vein (PV) isolation and additional left atrium (LA) substrate modification. This study assessed changes in the size and tissue characteristics of the LAA ostium in patients undergoing PV isolation. METHODS: This series included 8 patients who underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance evaluation of the LA with delayed enhancement magnetic resonance imaging and contrast enhanced 3-D magnetic resonance angiography pre-, within 48 h of, and 3 months post ablation. Two independent cardiac radiologists evaluated the ostial LAA diameters and area at each time point in addition to the presence of gadolinium enhancement. RESULTS: Compared to pre-ablation values, the respective median differences in oblique diameters and LAA area were +1.8 mm, +1.7 mm, and +0.6 cm(2) immediately post ablation (all NS) and -2.7 mm, -2.3 mm, and -0.5 cm(2) at 3 months (all NS). No delayed enhancement was detected in the LAA post ablation. CONCLUSION: No significant change to LAA diameter, area, or tissue characteristics was noted after PV isolation. While these findings suggest the safety and feasibility of concomitant PV isolation and LAA device occlusion, the variability in the degree and direction of change of the LAA measurements highlights the need for further study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".