ArticleClinical cardiology2023
Long-term safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure in patients with small appendage orifices measured with transesophageal echocardiography.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simultaneous Endocardial and Epicardial Approach for Successful Closure of Left Atrial Appendage With Difficult Anatomy.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Long-term safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure in patients with small appendage orifices measured with transesophageal echocardiography.Clinical cardiology · 2023Article
- Pericardial effusion following percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using the LAmbre device.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Watchman device is the most widely used occluder but is indicated in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a maximal left atrial appendage (LAA) orifice diameter between 17 and 31 mm. We aimed to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) between patients with a small LAA (<17 mm) and those with an indicated LAA (17-31 mm) measured by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE).
methodsA total of 369 AF patients treated with LAAC between March 2015 and February 2019 were included and divided into two groups based on the maximal LAA orifice diameter measured by TEE: small LAA group (n = 22) and indicated LAA group (n = 347). Periprocedural complications and long-term clinical outcomes were compared.
resultsThe Watchman device was successfully implanted in all patients. Mean device compression was higher in the small LAA group. Four patients (1.2%) in the indicated LAA group experienced pericardial effusion, and none experienced pericardial effusion in the small LAA group. Device-related thrombus was detected in one (4.5%) patient in the small LAA group and five (1.4%) in the indicated LAA group (p = .310). After a mean follow-up period of 4.1 ± 1.6 years, one patient in the small LAA group (4.5%; 1.1/100 person-years) and four in the indicated LAA group (1.2%; 0.3/100 person-years) suffered an ischemic stroke (p = .266).
conclusionsThe safety and efficacy of LAAC with the Watchman device were comparable between patients with small and indicated LAA orifice diameters measured by TEE.
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.