Abstract 18854: Long-term Follow-up After Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Ligation With the Lariat Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The objective of this retrospective multicenter study is to report the initial long-term performance results after percutaneous exclusion of the LAA with the endo-epicardial Lariat device to prevent AF-related thromboembolic events. Methods and results: Patients with successful LAA ligation and at least 1-year follow-up were analyzed (N=355). At 1 year, TEE follow-up was present in 172 patients. A leak was defined as presence of flow into the LAA as assessed by TEE. At 6 months, 19 (11%) patients had a leak; 2 strokes occurred: 1 in a patient without a leak and 1 associated with mesenteric ischemia in a patient without a known acute leak, who died before repeat TEE could be performed. At 12 months, 34 (20%) patients had a leak; 6 patients developed a neurological event (5 strokes and 1 TIA), 4 in patients with a leak, 2 in patients without a leak. 3% were followed-up for more than one 1 year (with a mean of 21±9 months). 1 additional thromboembolic event (TIA) occurred 14 months post-implant in a patient without anticoagulation and with a partially excluded LAA (stump), although no leak or thrombus were detected on standard TEE. Among patients with a leak (36% of those with long-term follow-up), 75% were on long-term anticoagulation and no additional TE events were detected. Out of 355 patients, 9 (2.5%) patients had a neurological event: 4 with a leak, 4 without a leak and 1 in a patient where TEE was not repeated. Considering those with known LAA status, thromboembolic events were more common in patients with a leak (4/34 vs 4/136; RR 4, 95% CI 1.1-15.4). Conclusion: In this multicenter experience with the Lariat device, the rate of leaks was high (20% of those with TEE follow-up at 1 year). Thromboembolic events were not rare (overall, 2.5%), and occurred more frequently in patients with a leak (RR 4).
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".