Safety and effectiveness of left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk: a cardinality-matched comparison with direct oral anticoagulation on long-term stroke and bleeding rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY AIMS: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an accepted alternative stroke prevention strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindications to oral anticoagulation despite the lack of randomised data in this population. This study aims to compare the outcomes of LAAO and direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) therapy in patients with high bleeding risk. METHODS: This cardinality-matched analysis comprised data from the Beat-AF and Swiss-AF cohorts (n = 3960; enrolment from 2010 to 2014 and from 2014 to 2017, respectively), along with the Zurich LAAO Registry (n = 535; patients included between 2010 and 2023). The primary endpoint was a composite of stroke, cardiovascular death or major bleeding. The individual components constituted the secondary endpoints. Time-dependent cumulative incidence curves were constructed and a competing risk analysis was included. RESULTS: After matching, 478 patients with a DOAC score ≥8 and 159 patients with previous major bleeding were compared in a 1:1 and 1:2 ratio, respectively, regarding their stroke prevention strategy (DOAC versus LAAO). After a median follow-up time of 4.9 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.2–6.1) in all patients with a DOAC score ≥8 and 4.4 years (IQR: 2.0–6.0) in all patients with previous major bleeding, there were no significant differences in the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67–1.14, p = 0.33 and HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.50–1.27, p = 0.33) and in the rates of stroke (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.39–1.42, p = 0.36 and HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.33–3.62, p = 0.89) and cardiovascular death (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.68–1.38, p = 0.85 and HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.50–1.64, p = 0.74). The rate of major bleedings was significantly lower in the LAAO group of both cohorts (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.32–0.94, p = 0.029 and HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.13–0.79, p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: In this high bleeding risk population, LAAO was associated with similar effectiveness in preventing atrial fibrillation-related stroke and cardiovascular death and significantly lower rates of major bleeding compared to DOAC therapy. This strengthens the value of LAAO as an alternative stroke prevention strategy for patients at high risk of bleeding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".