Impact of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy Versus Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion on Cognitive Function and Quality of Life in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background We compared the cognitive status and quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) or remaining on oral anticoagulation (OAC) after atrial fibrillation ablation. Methods and Results Cognition was assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) survey at baseline and follow‐up. Consecutive patients receiving LAAO or OAC after atrial fibrillation ablation were screened, and patients with a score of ≤17 were excluded from the study. Quality of life was measured at baseline and 1 year using the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life survey. A total of 50 patients (CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc [congestive heart failure, hypertension, age≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke or transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age 65–74 years, sex category] score: 3.30±1.43) in the LAAO group and 48 (CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score 2.73±1.25) in the OAC group were included in this prospective study. Mean baseline MoCA score was 26.18 and 26.08 in the LAAO and OAC groups, respectively ( P =0.846). At 1 year, scores were 26.94 and 23.38 in the respective groups. MoCA score decreased by an estimated −2.74 (95% CI, −3.61 to −1.87; P <0.0001) points in the OAC group, whereas the change in the LAAO group was nonsignificant (0.79; (95% CI, −0.06 to 1.64; P =0.07). After adjusting for baseline clinical characteristics, remaining on OAC was an independent predictor of MoCA change at 1 year (regression coefficient, −3.38; 95% CI, −4.75 to −2.02; P <0.0001). Change in Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life score did not differ significantly in achieving a clinically important difference between groups. Conclusions In this series, a significant difference in the postprocedure MoCA score was observed in postablation patients with atrial fibrillation receiving LAAO versus remaining on OAC with a substantial decline in the score in the OAC group. However, quality of life improved similarly across groups. Registration https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01816308
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".