Cardiology · 2022
Comparison between Amplatzer and Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Qiao Jianzhong, Zhang Bin, Wang Jie, Pan Lingxin, Cheng Tieniu, Wang Yuan, Xiong Enlai
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The Amplatzer and Watchman left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices are the two most frequently used devices for LAAC devices worldwide. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two devices.
METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies up to February 6, 2022 that compared the safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer and Watchman devices.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies including 2,150 patients in randomized controlled trials and 2,526 patients in observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amplatzer device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45-2.74, p < 0.0001) and device embolization (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.09-3.64, p = 0.03). However, Amplatzer device had lower rates of total peridevice leak (PDL) (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.27-0.83, p = 0.009), significant PDL (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.57, p = 0.0007) and device-related thrombus (DRT) (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95, p = 0.02). No statistical differences were observed between the two devices in other safety and efficacy endpoints, such as pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, air embolism, vascular complications, ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: Amplatzer LAAC device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications, especially in device embolization. Watchman LAAC device was associated with higher rates of PDL and DRT. There were no significant differences between two devices in ischemic stroke/TIA, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and bleeding.
METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies up to February 6, 2022 that compared the safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer and Watchman devices.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies including 2,150 patients in randomized controlled trials and 2,526 patients in observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amplatzer device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45-2.74, p < 0.0001) and device embolization (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.09-3.64, p = 0.03). However, Amplatzer device had lower rates of total peridevice leak (PDL) (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.27-0.83, p = 0.009), significant PDL (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.57, p = 0.0007) and device-related thrombus (DRT) (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95, p = 0.02). No statistical differences were observed between the two devices in other safety and efficacy endpoints, such as pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, air embolism, vascular complications, ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS: Amplatzer LAAC device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications, especially in device embolization. Watchman LAAC device was associated with higher rates of PDL and DRT. There were no significant differences between two devices in ischemic stroke/TIA, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and bleeding.