Left atrial appendage closure in patients with prior intracranial bleeding, safety, efficacy, and timing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: -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: -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: -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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".