ArticleHeliyon2024
The presence of spontaneous echo contrast didn't increase the risk for left atrial appendage closure: A propensity score matching analysis based on the CLACBAC study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) was effective in preventing thromboembolic events and stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, whether left atrial spontaneous echo contrast (LA-SEC) poses a higher risk for thromboembolism is contradictory. We aimed to investigate whether LA-SEC is a risk factor for thromboembolic events in patients who underwent LAAC. Methods: 258 consecutive patients who underwent successful LAAC were enrolled and divided according to the presence or absence of LA-SEC detected by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to eliminate covariate imbalances. Baseline characteristics, periprocedural details, and clinical outcomes were compared between LA-SEC and non-LA-SEC groups and PSM-matched groups. Results: Of the 258 patients enrolled, mean age was 71.8 ± 8.3 years and 59.3 % were male. LA-SEC group had a higher percentage of persistent AF and worse cardiac function. No significant difference in peri-procedure parameters was found. Through follow-up of 38.1 ± 10.7 months, the total incidence of thromboembolic events and stroke was 7.8 % and 6.6 %, respectively. Though the event-free survival rate of thromboembolic events (Log-Rank P = 0.042) and stroke (Log-Rank P = 0.010) was significantly lower in the LA-SEC group, multivariable COX regression analysis showed LA-SEC was not an independent predictor of thromboembolic events (Hazard ratio 2.073, 95 % Confidence interval 0.845-5.082, P = 0.111). Further survival analysis between PSM-matched groups with comparable baseline characteristics presented no significant difference in survival free from thromboembolic events (Log-Rank P = 0.616) and stroke (Log-Rank P = 0.312). Conclusion: Patients with LA-SEC had worse condition, while LA-SEC per se did not increase the incidence of thromboembolic events and stroke for patients who underwent LAAC.
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.