MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stroke Prevention With Prophylactic Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Cardiac Surgery Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Propensity-Score Studies

2024· review· en· W4402460457 on OpenAlexaff
Massimo Baudo, Serge Sicouri, Yoshiyuki Yamashita, Patrick M. McCarthy, Marc Gerdisch, Richard Whitlock, Basel Ramlawi

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationLeft atrial appendage occlusionHazard ratioInternal medicineCardiologySurgerySinus rhythmIncidence (geometry)Propensity score matchingMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialStroke (engine)Cumulative incidenceConfidence intervalCohortWarfarin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The role of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in patients without previous atrial fibrillation (AF) is not established. This meta-analysis was conducted on patients with normal sinus rhythm who underwent cardiac surgery, with and without concomitant LAAO, to evaluate its effect on the incidence of cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted from inception until December 2023 for randomized and propensity-score studies comparing CVA in patients without AF undergoing cardiac surgery with or without LAAO. RESULTS: Six studies met our inclusion criteria with a total of 4130 patients: 2146 in the LAAO group and 1984 in the no-LAAO group. The risk ratio of postoperative AF was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.86–1.28); P =0.628. The CVA rates at 5 years were 6.8±1.0% in the no-LAAO group and 4.3±0.8% in the LAAO group (log-rank P =0.021). The Cox regression analysis for CVA in patients undergoing LAAO reported a hazard ratio of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.45–0.94); P =0.022. Landmark analysis at 4 years highlighted a significant difference in overall survival between no-LAAO and LAAO groups, 86±12.2% versus 89.6±11.0%; P =0.041. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis of patients without previous AF undergoing cardiac surgery, LAAO was associated with a decreased risk of CVA, no difference in the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, and a significant overall survival benefit at a 4-year landmark analysis. Although these findings support LAAO, the randomized LeAAPS trial (Left Atrial Appendage Exclusion for Prophylactic Stroke Reduction Trial), LAA-CLOSURE trial (A Randomized Prospective Multicenter Trial for Stroke Prevention by Prophylactic Surgical Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage in Patients Undergoing Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Surgery), and LAACS-2 trial (Left Atrial Appendage Closure by Surgery-2) will help define the effectiveness of LAAO in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who have risk factors for AF and CVA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ; Unique identifier: CRD42024496366.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.064
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.124 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207