MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412886439 · doi:10.1016/j.jscai.2025.103784

SCAI/HRS Technical Review on Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

2025· article· en· W4412886439 on OpenAlexaff
Edmond M. Cronin, Steven J. Filby, Michael E. Field, Chetan Huded, Julia H. Indik, Abhishek Sharma, Scott Firestone, Angela Fix, Emily Senerth, Rebecca L. Morgan, Yngve Falck–Ytter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsAppendageLeft atrial appendage occlusionCardiologyInternal medicineOcclusionMedicineAtrial fibrillationAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke due to thrombus formation in the left atrial appendage, where over 90% of thrombi originate. While oral anticoagulation (OAC) is the standard therapy for stroke prevention, many patients cannot tolerate long-term OAC due to bleeding risks. Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as an alternative strategy. Despite its rapid adoption, substantial variability exists in clinical practice regarding patient selection, imaging techniques, procedural guidance, and postprocedural management. This systematic review aims to collect and synthesize evidence to inform the development of new Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) guidelines on LAAO. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception through January 5, 2024, for studies of the percutaneous LAAO procedure. Eligible studies were conducted in adults with NVAF undergoing LAAO, or with peridevice leak or device-related thrombus after an occlusion procedure. Studies of surgical LAAO, double device or combined procedures, and devices that are not currently marketed in the United States were excluded. Data were extracted from studies in duplicate and summarized using meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool, and version 2 of the Cochrane RoB tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0). Overall certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Our search identified 3769 titles and abstracts, of which 27 studies met eligibility criteria and contributed data to the analysis. Data were abstracted to address outcomes of LAAO for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF, in comparison to OAC, no therapy, and across various approaches including preprocedure imaging, intraprocedure guidance, and postprocedure antithrombotic regimens. Conclusions: Left atrial appendage occlusion is an effective alternative to OAC for stroke prevention in NVAF patients with bleeding risks, but uncertainties remain regarding imaging strategies and postprocedural management.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.482
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.306 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207