MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392860913 · doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2024.02.022

Systematic review and meta-analysis of left atrial appendage closure's influence on early and long-term mortality and stroke

2024· article· en· W4392860913 on OpenAlex
Mariusz Kowalewski, Michał Święczkowski, Łukasz Kuźma, Bart Maesen, Emil Julian Dąbrowski, Matteo Matteucci, Jakub Batko, Radosław Litwinowicz, Adam Kowalówka, Wojciech Wańha, Federica Jiritano, Giuseppe Maria Raffa, Pietro Giorgio Malvindi, Luigi Pannone, Paolo Meani, Roberto Lorusso, Richard Whitlock, Mark La Meir, Carlo de Asmundis, James L. Cox, Piotr Suwalski

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJTCVS Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersUniwersytet Medyczny w Bialymstoku
KeywordsAppendageTerm (time)Stroke (engine)Closure (psychology)CardiologyMeta-analysisMedicineInternal medicineAtrial AppendageAtrial fibrillationAnatomyEconomicsEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Objective</h3> Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) concomitant to heart surgery in patients with underlying atrial fibrillation (AF) has gained attention because of long-term reduction of thromboembolic complications. As of mortality benefits in the setting of non-AF, data from both observational studies and randomized controlled trials are conflicting. <h3>Methods</h3> On-line databases were screened for studies comparing LAAC versus no LAAC concomitant to other heart surgery. End points assessed were all-cause mortality and stroke at early and longest-available follow-up. Subgroup analyses stratified on preoperative AF were performed. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs served as primary statistics. <h3>Results</h3> Electronic search yielded 25 studies (N = 660 [158 patients]). There was no difference between LAAC and no LAAC in terms of early mortality. In the overall population analysis, LAAC reduced long-term mortality (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; <i>P</i> = .05; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 88%), reduced early stroke risk by 19% (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93; <i>P</i> = .002; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 57%), and reduced late stroke risk by 13% (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90; <i>P</i> < .001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 58%). Subgroup analysis showed lower mortality (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-1.01; <i>P</i> = .06; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 91%), short-, and long-term stroke risk reduction only in patients with preoperative AF (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93; <i>P</i> = .003; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 71% and RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91; <i>P</i> < .001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 70%, respectively). No benefit of LAAC in patients without AF was found. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Concomitant LAAC was associated with reduced stroke rates at early and long-term and possibly reduced all-cause mortality at the long-term follow-up but the benefits were limited to patients with preoperative AF. There is not enough evidence to support routine concomitant LAAC in non-AF settings.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it