Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing: A Deuteragonistic Role?

In this article, we reflect on the pros and cons of artificial intelligence (AI)-augmented scientific writing for more comprehensible research towards society to gain trust for science-led policy. For this purpose, we integrated our thoughts into the Factors of Perceived Trustworthiness from Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman's Model of Trust and made propositions to define AI's role in trustful scholarly communication.

Amplatzer left atrial appendage closure: Single versus combined procedures.

OBJECTIVES: This study compares procedural and late clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with Amplatzer devices as a single versus a combined procedure with other structural or coronary interventions. BACKGROUND: Multiple cardiac conditions are frequent among elderly patients and invite simultaneous treatment to ensure a favorable patient outcomes. METHODS: 559 consecutive patients (73.3 ± 11.1 years) underwent LAAC with Amplatzer devices at two centres (Bern and Zurich university hospitals, Switzerland) either as a single procedure or combined with other interventions. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding at follow-up, the primary efficacy endpoint included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death. All event rates are reported per 100 patient-years. RESULTS: In 263 single and 296 combined procedures with percutaneous coronary interventions (47.6%), closure of an atrial septal defect (8.4%) or a patent foramen ovale (36.5%), transcatheter aortic valve implantation (10.1%), mitral clipping (4.1%), atrial fibrillation ablation (8.8%), or another procedure (3.0%) were analyzed. Device success (96.6% [single] vs. 99.0% [combined], p = .08) did not differ between the groups. After a mean follow-up of 2.6 ± 1.5 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 years and a total of 1,422 patient-years, the primary efficacy (40/677, 5.9% [single] vs. 37/745, 5.0% [combined]; HR, 1.2, 95% CI, 0.8-1.9, p = .44), as well as the primary safety endpoint (25/677, 3.7% vs 28/745, 3.8%; HR, 1.0, 95% CI, 0.6-1.8, p = .89) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: LAAC with Amplatzer devices combined with structural, coronary, and electrophysiological procedures offers procedural feasibility and safety, as well as long-term efficacy.

Impact of individual stroke risk on outcome after Amplatzer left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate periprocedural and long-term outcome of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) using Amplatzer occluders with respect to individual pre-procedural stroke risk. BACKGROUND: LAAC is a proven strategy for prevention from stroke and bleeding in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation not amenable to oral anticoagulation. Whether individual pre-procedural stroke risk may affect procedural and long-term clinical outcome after LAAC is unclear. METHODS: Multicenter study of consecutive patients who underwent Amplatzer-LAAC. Using pre-procedural CHADS2 score, outcomes were compared between a low (0-2 points) and a high stroke risk group (3-6 points). RESULTS: Five hundred consecutive patients (73.9 ± 10.1 years) who underwent Amplatzer-LAAC. Two hundred and forty eight had preprocedural CHADS2 score ≤ 2 points (low-risk group) and the remaining 252 patients had 3-6 points (high-risk group). Periprocedural complication rates (6.0% vs. 5.6%, p = .85), procedural success (LAAC without major periprocedural or device-related complications or major para-device leaks: 89.4% vs. 87.9%, p = .74), and 30-day-mortality (2.4% vs. 2.6%, p = .77) were comparable. After 1,346 patient-years (PY), the long-term composite efficacy endpoint (stroke, systemic embolism, cardiovascular, and unexplained death) was reached in 23/653 (3.5/100 PY) versus 52/693 (7.5/100 PY); HR = 2.13; 95%-CI, 1.28-3.65, p = .002) with stroke rates 67% and 68% lower than anticipated by preprocedural CHADS2 score. Combined safety endpoint (major periprocedural complications and major, life-threatening or fatal bleedings) occurred in 22/653 (3.4/100 PY) versus 28/693 (4.0/100 PY); HR = 1.20; 95%-CI, 0.66-2.20, p = .52). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients at low risk of stroke, LAAC with Amplatzer devices is associated with similar safety and efficacy in high-risk patients in our study.

Left atrial appendage closure versus medical therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: the APPLY study.

AIMS: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with AMPLATZER occluders is used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Net clinical benefit compared to medical therapy has not been tested. The aim of this study was to test whether long-term clinical outcome after LAAC with AMPLATZER occluders may be similar to medical therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Five hundred consecutive patients who underwent LAAC with AMPLATZER occluders were compared to 500 patients with medical therapy by propensity score matching. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death. The primary safety endpoint consisted of major procedural adverse events and major bleedings. For assessment of net clinical benefit, all of the above-mentioned hazards were combined. After 2,645 patient-years at a mean follow-up of 2.7±1.5 years, the primary efficacy endpoint was reached by 75/1,342, 5.6% in the LAAC group versus 102/1,303, 7.8% per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.95, p=0.026). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 48/1,342, 3.6% versus 60/1,303, 4.6% per 100 patient-years (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.55-1.18, p=0.21), and the combined hazard endpoint in 109/1,342, 8.1% versus 142/1,303, 10.9% per 100 patient-years (HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.60-0.97, p=0.018). Patients receiving LAAC demonstrated lower rates of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality (111/1,342, 8.3% vs 151/1,303, 11.6% per 100 patient-years [HR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56-0.92, p=0.005] and 54/1,342, 4.0% vs 84/1,303, 6.5% per 100 patient-years [HR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.89, p=0.007]). CONCLUSIONS: LAAC with AMPLATZER devices showed a net clinical benefit over medical therapy by superior efficacy, similar safety and a benefit in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer occluders for left atrial appendage closure (WATCH at LAAC).

AIMS: This study compares clinical outcomes of Watchman vs. Amplatzer devices for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of two real-world registries, the Watchman registry Lichtenfels, Germany, and the Amplatzer registry Bern-Zurich, Switzerland, 303 and 333 consecutive patients, respectively, were included. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 266 vs. 266 patients were compared by use of the predefined primary efficacy endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death, the primary safety endpoint of major peri-procedural complications and major bleeding events at follow-up, and the combined hazard endpoint, a composite of all above-mentioned hazards. Mean age was 75.3 ± 7.8 (Watchman) vs. 75.1 ± 9.9 (Amplatzer) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.5 ± 1.5, and HAS-BLED score 3.2 ± 1.0 vs. 3.2 ± 1.0. At a mean follow-up of 2.4 ± 1.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.5 years and 1.322 patient-years, the primary endpoints of efficacy [40/646, 6.2% [Watchman] vs. 43/676, 6.4% [Amplatzer]; hazard ratio (HR), 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-1.58; P = 0.92] and safety (33/646, 5.1% vs. 30/676, 4.4%; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29-1.11; P = 0.10), as well as the combined hazard endpoint (69/646, 10.7% vs. 66/676, 9.8%; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.12; P = 0.26) were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: This study suggests comparable efficacy and safety of the Watchman and Amplatzer devices.

Incidence, predictors, and relevance of acute kidney injury in patients undergoing left atrial appendage closure with Amplatzer occluders: a multicentre observational study.

AIMS: Acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a frequent complication after cardiac interventions, such as left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), yet limited data are available on the incidence and clinical implication of AKI in this setting. We sought to assess incidence, predictors and relevance of AKI after LAAC. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed 95 LAAC patients in three European centers. AKI was defined according to the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) classification. The incidence of AKI was 13.7% with mild AKI in 92.3% and AKI stage > II in 7.7%. Total contrast volume was not linked to the occurrence of AKI (AKI: 127 ± 83 vs. no AKI: 109 ± 92 ml, p = 0.41), however increasing contrast volume (CV) to glomerular filtration rate (GFR) ratio (CV/GFR ratio) was associated with an increased risk of AKI (OR, per unit increase: 1.24, 95% CI 0.97-1.58, p = 0.08). ROC-analysis revealed a moderate predictive value of CV/GFR ratio for the prediction of AKI (AUC: 0.67, 95% CI 0.50-0.84, p = 0.05). Furthermore, AKI was associated with significantly increased mortality 6 months and 1 year after LAAC. No significant difference in the incidence of AKI was observed between patients with mere fluoroscopic and additional echocardiographic guidance (16.3% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.56). CONCLUSION: Whereas mild AKI is common in patients after LAAC, severe AKI is rare. AKI after LAAC is associated with poor baseline renal function, increased doses of contrast (CV/GFR ratio) and impaired outcome. Future studies will be needed to elaborate the benefit of reducing or avoiding contrast volume regarding this endpoint.

Transseptal puncture versus patent foramen ovale or atrial septal defect access for left atrial appendage closure.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the periprocedural and late clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) with AMPLATZER devices by access through transseptal puncture (TSP) versus a patent foramen ovale (PFO) or an atrial septal defect (ASD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2018, 578 consecutive patients underwent LAAC via TSP or PFO/ASD access in three centres. After a 3:1 propensity score matching, 246 (TSP) versus 91 (PFO/ASD) patients were compared using the primary efficacy endpoint of all-cause stroke, systemic embolism and cardiovascular/unexplained death and the primary safety endpoint of major periprocedural complications and major bleedings at follow-up. Mean age was 75.2±8.7 (TSP) vs 74.4±10.9 (PFO/ASD) years, CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5±1.6 vs 4.3±1.4 and HAS-BLED score 3.3±1.0 vs 3.3±0.9. Device success (97.6% vs 97.8%, p=0.90) was similar. After 2.5±1.4 vs 2.6±1.6 years, clinical efficacy (46/603, 7.6% [TSP] vs 21/233, 9.0% [PFO/ASD], hazard ratio [HR] 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.85, p=0.54) and safety (24/603, 4.0% vs 11/233, 4.7%; HR 1.4; 95% CI: 0.52-3.6, p=0.49) did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a PFO/ASD access for LAAC with AMPLATZER devices offers similar periprocedural and late clinical outcomes to TSP. Simultaneous PFO/ASD closure for an additional protective benefit does not increase risk.