Remote Tamponade After Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at high thromboembolic risk and contraindication to or high risk for bleeding with oral anticoagulation is increasing. CASE SUMMARY: The authors present a case of acute hemorrhagic tamponade 7 months after LAAC. Intraoperative findings showed device-related microperforation of the LAA and erosion of the adjacent pulmonary artery. DISCUSSION: Remote tamponade after LAAC has been reported with an incidence <1%, occurring more frequently in nitinol plug devices than in nitinol cage devices. Management ranges from conservative with cessation of antithrombotic agents to invasive with surgical repair. TAKE-HOME MESSAGES: Remote tamponade after LAAC is a rare but potentially fatal complication. Routine use of cardiac computed tomography in addition to transesophageal echocardiography for preprocedural planning, especially for nitinol plug devices, can identify patients at risk of delayed tamponade and can guide device selection, modified implantation technique, or alternative management strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".