Left atrial appendage closure: Initial experience with the ultraseal device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We report the initial experience of percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure with the Ultraseal device. BACKGROUND: LAA closure is an alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and high risk of bleeding. The Ultraseal device is a new LAA closure prosthesis that consists of a distal soft bulb and a proximal sail attached by an articulating joint that allows a high degree of device conformability to the different variations of the LAA anatomy. METHODS: We included 12 consecutive patients with NVAF who underwent LAA closure with the Ultraseal device between January and December 2015 in our center. Patients had clinical and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) examinations at baseline and at 45 days following LAA closure. RESULTS: The device was successfully implanted in all patients, with no periprocedural complications. There were no episodes of bleeding, stroke, pericardial effusion, or device embolization at 45-day follow-up. No cases with residual leaks >5 mm were observed at TEE. One patient presented a device related thrombus without clinical consequences. CONCLUSIONS: This initial experience with the Ultraseal LAA closure device demonstrates preliminary safety and feasibility. Further larger studies with longer follow-up are warranted. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".