ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Imaging-defined residual risk after left atrial appendage occlusion: from device surveillance to antithrombotic and reintervention decision considerations.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is increasingly used for stroke prevention in selected patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, particularly when long-term oral anticoagulation is unsuitable, poorly tolerated, or clinically undesirable. Although contemporary trials and registries have demonstrated favorable procedural success and long-term outcomes, post-implantation imaging findings continue to create uncertainty during follow-up. These findings include device-related thrombus (DRT), hypoattenuated thickening (HAT), peri-device leak (PDL), residual left atrial appendage patency, and device-appendage mismatch. Purpose: This review reframes post-LAAO imaging findings as imaging-defined residual risk markers and proposes an evidence-informed framework that explicitly links management considerations to their principal supporting evidence sources. Key content: DRT is uncommon but clinically relevant, with event rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism of approximately 6.3 per 100 patient-years in patients with DRT vs. 1.7 per 100 patient-years in those without DRT. HAT is a heterogeneous imaging phenotype ranging from expected healing to thrombus-like surface abnormality. CCTA detects residual appendage patency and PDL more frequently than TEE, but greater sensitivity does not automatically confer clinical actionability. This review organizes post-LAAO findings into three domains: device surface abnormality, residual communication, and device-appendage geometry. Conclusion: Post-LAAO imaging should move beyond binary device surveillance toward risk-weighted interpretation. Most management implications remain supported by expert consensus, observational evidence, and registry data rather than prospective trials. Outcome-linked imaging thresholds and prospective validation are required before imaging-defined residual risk can be incorporated into clinical decision pathways.
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.