MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412886578 · doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.05.048

2025 SCAI/HRS clinical practice guidelines on transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion

2025· article· en· W4412886578 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew M. Goldsweig, Michael Glikson, Jacqueline Joza, Clifford J. Kavinsky, Omar Khalique, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, G. Burkhard Mackensen, Gerald V. Naccarelli, Devi G. Nair, Jacqueline Saw, Rahul Sharma, Matthew W. Sherwood, Molly Szerlip, Yngve Falck–Ytter, Rebecca L. Morgan, Scott Firestone, Angela Fix, Emily Senerth, Christopher R. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart Rhythm · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineAntithromboticPsychological interventionLeft atrial appendage occlusionGrading (engineering)Atrial fibrillationIntensive care medicineEvidence-based medicineWarfarinCardiologyNursingAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) devices reduce the risk of atrial fibrillation-associated stroke relative to no oral anticoagulation. However, uncertainty and practice variation persist in the areas of patient selection, periprocedural imaging, adjunctive antithrombotic therapy, and management of peridevice leak (PDL) and device-related thrombus. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions and Heart Rhythm Society developed these evidence-based guidelines to support clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders in management decisions regarding LAAO. METHODS: The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions and Heart Rhythm Society convened a balanced, multidisciplinary guideline panel with <50% of members reporting significant conflicts of interest with the industry. Evidence Foundation, a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, provided methodological support for guideline development. The guideline panel formulated and prioritized clinical questions following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach in a population, intervention, comparison, outcome format. A technical review team of clinical and methodological experts conducted systematic reviews of the published evidence, synthesized data, and graded the certainty of evidence across outcomes. The guideline panel then developed recommendations and supporting statements informed by the technical review and using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation evidence-to-decision framework. RESULTS: The guideline panel developed 8 evidence-based recommendations to address variations in care related to LAAO. The panel also identified 2 knowledge gaps. CONCLUSIONS: Key recommendations address patient selection for LAAO, periprocedural imaging, adjunctive antithrombotic therapy, and management of PDL and device-related thrombus. The panel also recommended necessary future research regarding the use of single antiplatelet therapy following LAAO and regarding the management of PDL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.012

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations28
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueHeart RhythmSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207