ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
Comparative Endothelialization of the Watchman Plug Device and LACBES Pacifier Occluder after Left Atrial Appendage Closure.
Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of left atrial appendage closure with or without radiofrequency ablation on cardiac remodeling in atrial fibrillation patients.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Single Fluoroscopy Versus Transesophageal Echocardiogram: A Comparative Evaluation for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion With LACbes Device.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative to oral anticoagulants (OACs). However, incomplete device endothelialization (IDE) after LAAC has been linked to device-related thrombus (DRT) and subsequent thromboembolic events. Here, the differences in device endothelialization between the Watchman plug device and the LACBES pacifier occluder after implantation were investigated. Methods: Of 201 consecutive patients with indications for LAAC, 101 received a Watchman 2.5 device, and 100 received a LACBES occluder. IDE was defined as a residual flow of contrast agent inside the left atrial appendage (LAA) on cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) without peri-device leak (PDL) at the 3-month and 6-month follow-ups. Results: There were no significant differences in DRT or PDL incidence between the two groups. However, the IDE rate in the absence of PDL was higher in the LACBES group than in the Watchman group at 3 months (42.4% versus 25.8%; Conclusions: Our findings indicated that the LACBES occluder took longer to complete endothelialization than the Watchman device after successful LAAC therapy. CCTA is a reliable imaging method for assessing the sealing of LAAC devices and confirming complete device endothelialization.
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.