Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Thromboembolic Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) produces a five-fold increase in the risk of stroke, and the exclusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA), the main source of thrombi, is an interesting therapeutic option in patients with contraindication for oral anticoagulation.Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate the initial experience, immediate results and outcome at 45 days of percutaneous closure of the LAA in patients with AF and high risk of thromboembolic events, in whom chronic oral anticoagulation was contraindicated.Methods: Twenty-two patients with non-valvular AF and a CHA₂DS₂-VASc ≥2 in whom there was contraindication or impossibility of long-term oral anticoagulation underwent percutaneous closure of the LAA with the WATCHMAN™ device. The patients were evaluated 45 days after the procedure by clinical assessment and transesophageal echocardiography.Results: The implant was successful in 21 of 22 patients (95.4%). Median (interquartile range) age and CHA₂DS₂-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 76 years (IQR 14.5), 5 (IQR 1.5) and 4 (IQR 1), respectively. Three (13.6%) periprocedural complications were observed: one cardiac tamponade requiring surgery, one concealed major bleeding and one pseudoaneurysm of the femoral artery. No device-related complications or thromboembolic events were observed during the 45-day follow-up. The LAA was adequately excluded in 95% of the cases.Conclusions: In our initial experience, the procedure is feasible, with an acceptable risk, and can be considered a therapeutic option in patients with AF and high thromboembolic risk who cannot receive oral anticoagulation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".