ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2025
Impact of Immunosuppressive Drugs on Patients With Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of Immunosuppressive Drugs on Patients With Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPercutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) reduces the risk of thromboembolic stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who cannot tolerate long-term oral anticoagulation. However, outcomes after LAAC in patients requiring chronic immunosuppressive therapy (IMS) remain unknown. This study aimed to investigate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of percutaneous LAAC in patients receiving chronic IMS. METHODS AND
resultsPatients who underwent LAAC were retrospectively evaluated according to the presence of long-term IMS therapy. Perioperative complications, clinical outcomes, and device follow-up characteristics were evaluated. From November 2017 to March 2023, a total of 1172 patients who underwent LAAC were included (69.3% male, 74.8 years), of whom 74 were taking IMS. The most common reasons for IMS use were rheumatoid arthritis (50.0%), followed by kidney transplantation (17.6%). There were no significant differences in intraoperative complications between the IMS group and the non-IMS group. (1.4% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.943). During 617 [IQR: 373-1046] days, the incidence of systemic infections was higher in the IMS group (25.0% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in peri-device leak (PDL) or device-related thrombus, but the IMS group had a lower percentage of patients with improvement of PDL during follow-up (8.3% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.003).
conclusionSuccessful LAAC in patients on IMS was achieved without increasing perioperative complications. Patients on chronic IMS did have an increased occurrence of systemic infections during long-term follow-up. The presence of IMS use was negatively associated with PDL improvement during follow-up.
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.