ReviewPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2022
2019 Chinese expert consensus statement on left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Review in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Perioperative Treatment with Rivaroxaban and Dabigatran on Changes of Coagulation and Platelet Activation Biomarkers following Left Atrial Appendage Closure.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2024Article
- Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia post-cardiovascular interventional therapy: a case report.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Article
- 2019 Chinese expert consensus statement on left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), the efficacy and safety of which has been proved by a number of randomized controlled trials and registries, is recommended by several guidelines to prevent stroke in high-risk patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. However, current guidelines only discuss the indications and contraindications of LAAC, as an emerging technology, there still lacks comprehensive recommendations involved with LAAC, including devices, image assessment modality, identification and treatment of complications, perioperative medication, and postoperative management. Therefore, the Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) of Chinese Medical Association (CMA) and the Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Cardiology jointly issued the expert consensus statement on LAAC in the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation after comprehensive discussion by experts with different backgrounds. This consensus provided three levels of recommendations to guide and standardize the clinical application of LAAC based on existing evidence and clinical practice experience, including appropriate (more potential benefits or fewer harms), uncertain (somehow reasonable but need more evidence), and inappropriate (unlikely to benefit, or have more complications).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.