ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with concomitant dual-device implantation: a single-center observational study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure (LAAC) is a proven stroke prevention strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, incomplete sealing in complex LAA anatomies may compromise efficacy. Objectives: This study evaluates the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of concomitant dual-device LAAC in multilobed anatomies, representing the largest cohort examined to date. Methods: We reviewed all LAAC procedures performed at the University Hospital of Bern between 2009 and 2025. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and follow-up data were analyzed for patients receiving dual-device LAAC. Endpoints included technical success, complications, thromboembolic events, and device-related issues. Continuous data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median values, while categorical data were reported as percentages. Group comparisons were conducted using Results: Of 1,307 LAAC procedures, 10 included dual-device implantation. The mean age of the patients was 71 years, and all patients were men. The Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke or TIA, Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex category (CHA Conclusion: In this small cohort of patients with complex multilobed LAA anatomy, concomitant implantation of two Amplatzer devices proved to be a feasible strategy with acceptable short-term safety, although potentially associated with an increased risk of pericarditis.
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.