Safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman 2.5 for left atrial appendage occlusion: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) to decrease the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); however, certain complications remain a concern. Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman are the two most popular used devices for preventing stroke in patients with NVAF. We assessed the safety and efficacy of LAAO using the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman. METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy outcomes associated with the use of the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman 2.5. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale has been utilized to assess the quality of study. RESULTS: The meta-analysis includes seven studies involving 2926 patients (1418 patients with an amulet and 1508 with a Watchman 2.5). Generally, adverse event rates for both systems were minimal. No significant differences between the two devices were found in safety (pericardial effusion, device embolization, and cardiac tamponade) or efficacy outcomes (death, TIA, stroke, major/minor bleeding, device leak, and thromboembolic events). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest LAAO is a safe procedure, regardless of which device was used. LAAO devices generally have low complication rates. Outcomes were comparable between the two groups with no significant differences in their safety or efficacy.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".