Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37584874›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2023

Left Atrial Appendage Closure with Watchman vs Amulet Devices: Similarities and Differences.

Adnan Ahmed, Danish Bawa, Rajesh Kabra, Naga Venkata K Pothineni, Douglas Darden, Rakesh Gopinathannair, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Adnan AhmedKansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park, KS, USA.
Danish BawaKansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park, KS, USA.
Rajesh KabraKansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park, KS, USA.
Naga Venkata K PothineniKansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park, KS, USA.
Douglas DardenKansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park, KS, USA.
Rakesh GopinathannairKansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park, KS, USA.
Dhanunjaya LakkireddyKansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park, KS, USA. Dhanunjaya.Lakkireddy@HCAHealthcare.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1492-2693
Heart Rhythm Society · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewLeft atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has shown to be non-inferior to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). LAAC is now becoming a leading method for stroke prophylaxis in patients who have atrial fibrillation and are unable to tolerate OAC. There are currently two FDA-approved endocardial closure devices, namely, the Watchman FLX and Amplatzer Amulet. RECENT

findingsCurrent data highlights that both devices offer similar efficacy and safety for LAAC. While the two devices differ in terms of intraprocedural complication rates, they offer similar short- to long-term outcomes in regard to peri-device leaks, device-related thrombosis, and mortality. With similar risk and safety profiles, both devices are indicated for patients who are unable to tolerate OAC. Newer clinical studies are directed to establish the efficacy of both devices as the primary method for stroke prevention in AF as an alternate to OAC.

Indexed as

Atrial AppendageAtrial FibrillationCardiac Surgical ProceduresStrokeAnticoagulantsHumansTreatment OutcomeAnticoagulantsAmulet deviceDevice-related thrombosisLeft atrial appendage closureOral anticoagulationPeri-device leaksWatchman FLX

Identifiers

PMID37584874
OpenAlexW4385850427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.