MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411169238 · doi:10.1016/j.nrl.2023.11.012

Left atrial appendage closure in patients with prior intracranial bleeding, safety, efficacy, and timing

2025· article· en· W4411169238 on OpenAlex
David González Calle, Luis Nombela‐Franco, Hipólito Gutiérrez-García, V. Peral, Jules Mesnier, Gema Tirado-Conde, Alejandro Francisco Barrero-Mier, Alexandra González-Eras, Gilles O’Hara, Luis López-Mesonero, Pablo Salinas, Laura Sanchís, Pedro Cepas‐Guillén, Ana Elvira Laffond, Xavier Freixa, Ignacio J. Amat‐Santos, Pedro L. Sánchez, Josep Rodés‐Cabau, Ignacio Cruz‐González

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

VenueNeurología · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación
KeywordsMedicineAppendageClosure (psychology)CardiologyInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Oral anticoagulation (OAC) use increases the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥ 2. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative to OAC, however data about its use in patients with prior ICH is scarce and the timing of its performance is controversial. Furthermore, the long-term outcomes in this group of patients have not been described previously. Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of LAAO in patients with non-valvular AF and prior ICH (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥ 2) and to determine adequate timing of its performance. Methods This is a multicenter retrospective registry that included 128 patients, whose indication for this procedure was ICH. Patients were divided into two groups: early occlusion ( n = 31; 24.2%), in which the procedure was performed before 90 days had elapsed after the bleeding, and late occlusion ( n = 97; 75.8%), after 90 days. Results Global procedural success was of 97% (124/128). Procedure-related complications occurred in 4 patients (3.15%): 2 cardiac tamponade, 1 device embolization and 1 transient ischemic attack during hospitalization. There was a significant reduction in the ischemic and bleeding rates compared to expected based on CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and HASBLED scores (93.9% and 89.9% respectively) after a mean follow-up of 73.9 ± 34.1 months. There were no significant differences neither in baseline characteristics between the early and late occlusion groups nor in the procedural success or complications rates. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were found in mortality, ischemic events, or hemorrhage between the early and late occlusion group. Conclusions Left atrial appendage occlusion is an effective and safe treatment alternative to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke in selected patients with atrial fibrillation and prior intracranial hemorrhage. In this study, we did not find differences regarding safety and efficacy in early closure compared with late closure. Further studies are needed to support early closure to reduce the complications associated with oral anticoagulation withdrawal.

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)0.000
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · 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