Intra-procedural imaging of the left atrial appendage: Implications for closure with the Amplatzer™ cardiac plug
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intra-procedural imaging with transesophageal echocardiography and angiography during left atrial appendage occlusion using the Amplatzer™ Cardiac Plug with regard to sizing and final device shape. METHODS: Left atrial appendage ostium dimensions and diameter at a depth of 10mm from the ostium were measured by transesophageal echocardiography (0-180°) and angiography (RAO 30° - Cranial 20°) in consecutive patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion using the ACP with an oversizing strategy of 10-20% relative to the baseline measurements. After delivery, ACP dimensions were measured and device shape was assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven consecutive patients underwent successful uncomplicated left atrial appendage closure with Amplatzer™ Cardiac Plug. We found a significant difference between the largest and smallest left atrial appendage diameter measured with transesophageal echocardiography (22.3±4.2 vs. 18.1±4.1mm, p<0.001). By the end of the procedure (by angiography), ACP had an optimal shape in 17 patients (63%), a strawberry-like shape in 7 patients (26%), and a square-like shape in 3 patients (11%). ACP was oversized on average by 1.5±2.7 and 3.3±2.3mm compared to transesophageal echocardiography and angiography, respectively. The final shape of the device was not significantly associated with the degree of oversizing. CONCLUSIONS: We found a considerable variability in the assessment of the left atrial appendage, using transesophageal echocardiography and angiography. The degree of Amplatzer™ Cardiac Plug expansion within the left atrial appendage and the final shape of the device were not associated with the degree of oversizing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".