Rationale and design of the anticoagulant therapy after left atrial appendage closure (ATLAAC) trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has become a recommended addition to oral anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation, who undergo cardiac surgery. The procedure significantly reduces the risk of stroke and systemic arterial embolism, potentially making oral anticoagulation (OAC) unnecessary or even harmful, when considering the associated increased risk of bleeding. This publication describes the rationale and design of a randomized trial, testing the hypothesis that stopping OAC is noninferior to continuing OAC after surgical LAAC in terms of the primary endpoint. METHODS: The ATLAAC trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, aiming to enroll 1,220 patients with atrial fibrillation, who have undergone surgical LAAC and remain on OAC. A cardiac CT scan is performed to confirm success of the LAAC. Patients with successful closure are randomized to stop or continue OAC. The primary endpoint is the first occurrence of ischemic stroke, systemic arterial embolism, or major bleeding over an expected mean follow-up of 4 years. Secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, any bleeding leading to hospitalization, blood transfusion, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, and quality of life measures. TRIAL STATUS: Enrollment for the ATLAAC trial began in March 2024. As of January 18th, 2025, 554 patients have been enrolled in the study and 319 patients have been randomized. Recruitment is expected to continue for approximately 12 months. Follow-up will be stopped once 128 primary endpoints have occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The ATLAAC trial will evaluate the safety of stopping OAC after surgical LAAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EU-CT: 2022-502986-92-00, clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT06401616.
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 | 0.045 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".