Outcomes of Patent Foramen Ovale Transcatheter Closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of erosion of an atrial septal closure device, in particular the Amplatzer Septal Occluder, has been described as higher in patients with a short aortic rim. Similar concern has been applied to patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure devices, but there are only rare reported cases of erosion. It may be that smaller devices are chosen due to fear of device erosion in PFO patients when this is not necessarily an issue. The authors aimed to assess outcomes after PFO closure with the Amplatzer PFO device in patients with a short (<9 mm) aortic rim. We performed a retrospective analysis of PFO closure for any indication, between 2006 and 2017 at a quaternary center. Preprocedural transesophageal echocardiographic parameters including the aortic rim were remeasured. Long-term outcomes were obtained by linkage to provincial administrative databases. Over the study period, 324 patients underwent PFO closure with the Amplatzer PFO device, with a mean age of 49.8 years; 61% had a short aortic rim (<9 mm). The most common indication was cryptogenic stroke (72%); those with longer aortic distance were more likely to have a non-stroke indication for closure, diabetes (15% vs 6.5%, P = 0.04), and heart failure (15.7% vs 4%, P < 0.001). Over a median 7 years of follow-up, there were no cases of device erosion or embolization requiring cardiac surgery. In a large cohort with long-term administrative follow-up (1,394 patient-years), implantation of an Amplatzer PFO device was performed safely even in patients with a short aortic rim.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".