Early Canadian Multicenter Experience With WATCHMAN for Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure Background There are limited data with WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick, MA, USA) for left atrial appendage (LAA) closure in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindications to anticoagulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of WATCHMAN in our early Canadian experience. Methods We report our pooled consecutive series of patients who underwent WATCHMAN implantation at four major Canadian centers. Indications for LAA closure were CHADS 2 ≥ 1 or CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc ≥ 2, and contraindication/intolerance to or failure on anticoagulation. Follow‐up imaging was typically performed 1–6 months postprocedure. Results One hundred and six patients underwent LAA closure with WATCHMAN from May 2013 to October 2015. The mean age was 74.8 ± 7.7, mean CHADS 2 score was 2.8 ± 1.2, CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score was 4.3 ± 1.5, and HASBLED score was 3.2 ± 1.2. Permanent AF was present in 67.9% and paroxysmal AF in 32.1%. Indications for LAA closure were prior bleeding 89.6% (87 major bleeding and 8 minor bleeding), 9.4% were deemed high risk for bleeding, and 0.9% with recurrent strokes on warfarin. Procedural success was 97.2% (103 of 106), with one device embolization (snared percutaneously), one implant failure due to inadequate LAA depth, and one cardiac perforation requiring surgical repair before WATCHMAN implantation. The composite major safety event‐rate was 1.9% (1 death and 1 device embolization). Mean hospital stay was 1.8 ± 4.7 days. Antithrombotic therapy postimplant included dual antiplatelet therapy in 76 of 103 (73.8%). Mean follow‐up was 210 ± 182 days; there were two transient ischemic attacks, with estimated 66% reduction in thromboembolic events relative to CHADS 2 predicted risk. Conclusion In our early Canadian experience, WATCHMAN for LAA closure in patients contraindicated to anticoagulation appeared safe and effective.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".