International journal of cardiology · 2024
Combined left atrial appendage occlusion and catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation versus isolated left atrial appendage occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорМетаанализСтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Clemente Mariana R C, Navalha Denilsa D P, Bittar Vinicius, Costa Thomaz Alexandre, Fernandes Gabriel Prusch, Silva Livia Teixeira Martins
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Data on the effects of combined left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) and catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) remain limited. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LAAO and CA versus isolated LAAO.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing combined LAAO and CA versus isolated LAAO in patients with atrial fibrillation. Statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.1. We pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes.
RESULTS: We included eight studies comprising 51,802 patients, of whom 1375 (2.6 %) underwent combined LAAO and CA. There were no significant differences between combined LAAO and CA versus isolated LAAO in terms of major bleeding (OR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.09, 3.41; p = 0.52; I2 = 0 %), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.40, 1.93; p = 0.74; I2 = 0 %), stroke (OR 1.03; 95 % CI 0.35, 3.00; p = 0.96; I2 = 0 %), thromboembolism (OR 0.60; 95 % CI 0.18, 1.98; p = 0.40; I2 = 0 %), minor bleeding (OR 1.32; 95 % CI 0.63, 2.80; p = 0.46; I2 = 0 %), or pericardial effusion (OR 1.18; 95 % CI 0.60, 2.33; p = 0.63; I2 = 24 %).
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of observational studies, combined LAAO and CA for AF was similar to isolated LAAO in terms of efficacy and safety. Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to explore the long-term effects of combining these procedures.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing combined LAAO and CA versus isolated LAAO in patients with atrial fibrillation. Statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.1. We pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes.
RESULTS: We included eight studies comprising 51,802 patients, of whom 1375 (2.6 %) underwent combined LAAO and CA. There were no significant differences between combined LAAO and CA versus isolated LAAO in terms of major bleeding (OR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.09, 3.41; p = 0.52; I2 = 0 %), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.40, 1.93; p = 0.74; I2 = 0 %), stroke (OR 1.03; 95 % CI 0.35, 3.00; p = 0.96; I2 = 0 %), thromboembolism (OR 0.60; 95 % CI 0.18, 1.98; p = 0.40; I2 = 0 %), minor bleeding (OR 1.32; 95 % CI 0.63, 2.80; p = 0.46; I2 = 0 %), or pericardial effusion (OR 1.18; 95 % CI 0.60, 2.33; p = 0.63; I2 = 24 %).
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of observational studies, combined LAAO and CA for AF was similar to isolated LAAO in terms of efficacy and safety. Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to explore the long-term effects of combining these procedures.