Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37525493›Full record

ArticleKorean circulation journal2023

Is It Safe to Preserve Left Atrial Appendage During Maze Procedure?

Kyungsub Song, Woo Sung Jang, Namhee Park, Yun Seok Kim, Jae Bum Kim

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Korean circulation journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Empire Strikes Back?Korean circulation journal · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kyungsub SongDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Keimyung University Dongsan Center, Keimyung University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6556-2261
Woo Sung JangDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Keimyung University Dongsan Center, Keimyung University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. whiteuri@dsmc.or.kr.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1576-9472
Namhee ParkDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Keimyung University Dongsan Center, Keimyung University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8701-2220
Yun Seok KimDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Keimyung University Dongsan Center, Keimyung University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2817-557X
Jae Bum KimDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Keimyung University Dongsan Center, Keimyung University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2287-9760
Keimyung University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesThe left atrial appendage (LAA) can contribute significantly to LA mechanical contraction. Nevertheless, the preventive effect of LAA occlusion during the maze procedure against cerebral infarction remains controversial. In this study, we compared the surgical, cardiac hemodynamic, and neurologic outcomes between LAA preservation and occlusion performed during the maze procedure.

methodsBetween January 2015 and August 2021, 252 patients underwent the maze procedure using cryoablation at our medical center. After excluding patients according to our exclusion criteria (i.e., mechanical prosthesis implantation, preexisting LAA thrombus), LAA was preserved in 113 patients (non-occlusion group) and occluded in 75 patients (occlusion group). Outcomes were compared using propensity score matching (PSM).

resultsPSM did not reveal significant intergroup differences in baseline characteristics between the non-occlusion (n=53) and occlusion (n=53) groups. During a median follow-up of 44 months, 2 patients in the non-occlusion group (3.8%) experienced ischemic strokes. There was no significant difference in the rate of freedom from stroke (p=0.19) and major adverse cardiac events (p=0.43) between the 2 groups. Through echocardiography at 1-year follow-up, a statistically significant difference in LA mechanical contraction was observed between the non-occlusion group and occlusion group (24 of 33 [72.7%] vs. 18 of 37 [48.6%], respectively; p=0.04).

conclusionsIn this study, preservation of the LAA during the maze procedure resulted in better LA function than LAA occlusion, with similar rates of stroke.

Indexed as

Atrial fibrillationMaze procedureStroke

Identifiers

PMID37525493
PMCPMC10435823
OpenAlexW4380904401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.