Stroke Prevention With Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Prior Intracranial Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Oral anticoagulation (OAC) is deemed a relative contraindication after intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) if the cause cannot be eliminated and the risk of recurrence is high. That leaves atrial fibrillation (AF) patients at high risk of thromboembolic events. Endovascular left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) can be an alternative to OAC for patients requiring stroke prevention. Methods We performed a retrospective single-centre analysis of 138 consecutive ICH patients with nonvalvular AF and high stroke risk who underwent LAAC between 2010 and 2022 at Vancouver General Hospital. We report the baseline characteristics, procedural results, and follow-up data, comparing the observed stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) rate with the predicted event rate based on their CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc scores. Results The average age was 76.1 ± 8.5 years; the mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 4.4 ± 1.5; and the mean HAS-BLED score was 3.7 ± 0.9. The procedural success rate was 98.6%, and the complication rate was 3.6% with no periprocedural death, stroke, or TIA. The antithrombotic regimen post-LAAC consisted of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (1-6 months) followed by aspirin alone for a minimum of 6 months in 86.2%. At mean follow-up of 14.7 ± 13.7 months, 9 deaths (6.5%, 7 cardiovascular, 2 noncardiovascular), 2 strokes (1.4%), and 1 TIA (0.7%) had occurred. The annualized observed stroke/TIA rate was 1.8%, which was lower than the adjusted predicted stroke rate of 7.0% (95% confidence interval: 4.8%-9.2%). Two patients (1.5%) suffered another ICH (both on aspirin monotherapy). One device-related thrombus (0.7%) was confirmed and treated with OAC without sequelae. Conclusion Endovascular LAAC is a feasible alternative to OAC for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular AF and prior ICH.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".