Left atrial appendage occlusion in chicken‐wing anatomies: Imaging assessment, procedural, and clinical outcomes of the “sandwich technique”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe imaging assessment, procedural and follow-up outcome of patients undergoing left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion (LAAO) using a "sandwich" technique. BACKGROUND: The presence of a LAA with chicken wing morphology constitutes a challenge that sometimes requires specific occlusion strategies like the "sandwich" technique. However, procedural and follow-up data focusing on this implanting strategy is scarce. METHODS: This multicenter study collected individual data from eight centers between 2012 and 2019. Consecutive patients with chicken-wing LAAs defined as an early (<20 mm from the ostium) and severe bend (>90°) who underwent LAAO with Amplatzer devices and using the "sandwich" technique were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 190 subjects were enrolled in the study. Procedures were done with the Amulet device (85%) and the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (15%). Successful implantation was achieved in 99.5% with ≤1 partial recapture in 80% of cases. Single (46.2%) and dual antiplatelet therapy (39.4%) were the most used antithrombotic therapies after LAAO. In-hospital major adverse events rate was 1.5% with no deaths. One patient (0.5%) had cardiac tamponade requiring percutaneous drainage. With a mean follow-up of 19.6 ± 14.8 months, the mortality and stroke rates were 7.7%/year and 2.5%/year, respectively. Follow-up transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) at 2-3 months showed device-related thrombosis in 2.8% and peri-device leak ≥3 mm in 1.2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In a large series of patients with chicken wing LAA anatomies undergoing LAAO, the use of the "sandwich" technique was feasible and safe. Preprocedural imaging was a key-factor to determine specific measurements.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".