Side-by-Side Comparison of LAA Occlusion Performance With the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug and Amplatzer Amulet.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Amplatzer Amulet, a second-generation device for left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO), has been designed to facilitate the implantation process, improve the closure performance, and reduce the risk of complications. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) with the Amplatzer Amulet for LAAO, with a special focus on the incidence of residual leaks. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center review of consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous LAAO with either ACP or Amulet devices. The first transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) at follow-up (1-3 months) was utilized to assess the occurrence of residual leaks. RESULTS: Between November 2009 and August 2013, a total of 59 patients underwent LAAO with either the ACP device (n = 31) or Amulet device (n = 28). The device was successfully implanted in 58 patients (98.3%). There was no procedural device embolization, stroke, or cardiac tamponade. Follow-up TEE was available in 86% (50 patients; 25 ACP devices and 25 Amulet devices). At follow-up, there was no procedural device embolization, and only 1 patient who received an Amulet device presented with device thrombosis at follow-up. Amulet use was associated with a significant reduction of any leak (minor, moderate, or major) compared with ACP use (48% ACP vs 8% Amulet; P=.01). CONCLUSION: In this initial series, the Amulet showed similar procedural and short-term clinical outcomes compared with the ACP. The Amulet was, however, associated with a significant reduction of residual leaks at follow-up.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".