Routine left atrial appendage occlusion in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: New evidence suggests a greater prevalence of protracted postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) than previously recognized. The left atrial appendage (LAA) is the most common source of embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. In this review, we ask whether there is evidence to support routine LAA occlusion (LAAO) in patients without preexisting atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Overall, available studies are small, inconsistent and have varying proportions of patients with and without preexisting atrial fibrillation. There is considerable discrepancy with respect to the efficacy of LAAO in reducing the risk of POAF-related stroke. Only one study reported a lower rate of stroke in the LAAO group compared with no LAAO. Two studies included a subgroup analysis of patients that developed POAF and report a significantly higher rate of stroke in patients that developed POAF and did not undergo LAAO. There are three clinical trials ongoing that are investigating prophylactic LAAO in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: ATLAS, LAA-CLOSURE and LAACS-2. SUMMARY: There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend routine addition of LAAO to lower the risk of postoperative stroke. Ongoing clinical trials will provide important insight into the role of routine LAAO in all patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".