Comparison of cardiac computed tomography angiography and transoesophageal echocardiography for device surveillance after left atrial appendage closure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Device surveillance after left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) is important to assess device positioning, peri-device leak (PDL) and device-related thrombus (DRT). There are limited data on the role of cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) after LAAC. We therefore sought to compare CCTA to transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in patients who successfully underwent LAAC. METHODS AND RESULTS: We report our consecutive series of non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients who underwent LAAC and had CCTA and TEE post LAAC. Prospective cardiac-gated CCTA was performed with the Toshiba 320-detector or Siemens second-generation 128-slice dual-source scanner, and post-processing was performed with IMPAX 3D reformats. Glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m² was an exclusion for CCTA. Device positioning, PDL or fabric leak, ratio of left atrial (LA) to LAA linear attenuation coefficient, and DRT were analysed. One hundred and two patients underwent LAAC (79 WATCHMAN, 17 Amulet, 6 ACP). Mean age was 76.4±7.5 years, CHADS2 score 3.0±1.3, and CHADS-VASc score 4.6±1.6. CCTA was performed at a mean of 105.2±54.8 days, and TEE at a mean of 124.9±100.3 days post LAAC. LAA patency was observed in 52/100 (52%), with 45 (86.5%) via PDL and seven (13.5%) through fabric leak. Linear attenuation coefficient <100 HU and LA:LAA ratio <0.25 were seen in occluded devices. PDL was only observed in 35/102 (34.3%) on TEE. Mean device compression was greater with sealed devices (11.3±4.3% versus 8.2±4.0%, p<0.001). There was only one DRT, which was observed on both TEE and CCTA. CONCLUSIONS: CCTA is a suitable alternative to TEE for device surveillance post LAAC. CCTA was more sensitive than TEE for assessing PDL and can delineate the cause of residual LAA contrast patency.
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.
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 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it