Catheter ablation alone versus catheter ablation with combined percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Joey Junarta, Muhammad U Siddiqui, Ehab Abaza, Peter Zhang, Aarash Roshandel, Chirag R Barbhaiya, Lior Jankelson, David S Park, Douglas Holmes, Larry A Chinitz, Anthony Aizer
{"title":"Catheter ablation alone versus catheter ablation with combined percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Joey Junarta, Muhammad U Siddiqui, Ehab Abaza, Peter Zhang, Aarash Roshandel, Chirag R Barbhaiya, Lior Jankelson, David S Park, Douglas Holmes, Larry A Chinitz, Anthony Aizer","doi":"10.1007/s10840-024-01915-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Combined catheter ablation (CA) with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) may produce comprehensive treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) whereby rhythm control is achieved and stroke risk is reduced without the need for chronic oral anticoagulation. However, the efficacy and safety of this strategy is still controversial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Eligible studies reported outcomes in patients with AF who underwent combined CA and LAAC vs CA alone. Studies performing CA without pulmonary vein isolation were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies comprising 1878 patients were included (2 RCT, 6 observational). When comparing combined CA and LAAC vs CA alone, pooled results showed no difference in arrhythmia recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.33), stroke or systemic embolism (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.27-2.22), or major periprocedural complications (RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.28-5.89). Total procedure time was shorter with CA alone (mean difference 48.45 min; 95% CI 23.06-74.62).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Combined CA with LAAC for AF is associated with similar rates of arrhythmia-free survival, stroke, and major periprocedural complications when compared to CA alone. A combined strategy may be as safe and efficacious for patients at moderate to high risk for bleeding events to negate the need for chronic oral anticoagulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":16202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-024-01915-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Combined catheter ablation (CA) with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) may produce comprehensive treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) whereby rhythm control is achieved and stroke risk is reduced without the need for chronic oral anticoagulation. However, the efficacy and safety of this strategy is still controversial.
Methods: This meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Eligible studies reported outcomes in patients with AF who underwent combined CA and LAAC vs CA alone. Studies performing CA without pulmonary vein isolation were excluded.
Results: Eight studies comprising 1878 patients were included (2 RCT, 6 observational). When comparing combined CA and LAAC vs CA alone, pooled results showed no difference in arrhythmia recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.33), stroke or systemic embolism (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.27-2.22), or major periprocedural complications (RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.28-5.89). Total procedure time was shorter with CA alone (mean difference 48.45 min; 95% CI 23.06-74.62).
Conclusion: Combined CA with LAAC for AF is associated with similar rates of arrhythmia-free survival, stroke, and major periprocedural complications when compared to CA alone. A combined strategy may be as safe and efficacious for patients at moderate to high risk for bleeding events to negate the need for chronic oral anticoagulation.
背景:联合导管消融术(CA)与经皮左心房阑尾封堵术(LAAC)可对心房颤动(AF)进行综合治疗,从而达到控制心律和降低中风风险的目的,而无需长期口服抗凝药。然而,这一策略的有效性和安全性仍存在争议:本荟萃分析根据《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》指南进行报告。对 Medline、Scopus 和 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 进行了系统检索,以确定相关研究。采用改良纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表和 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。符合条件的研究报告了房颤患者联合接受 CA 和 LAAC 与单独接受 CA 的结果。未进行肺静脉隔离的 CA 研究被排除在外:结果:共纳入了 8 项研究,包括 1878 名患者(2 项 RCT,6 项观察性研究)。在比较联合 CA 和 LAAC 与单独 CA 时,汇总结果显示在心律失常复发(风险比 (RR) 1.04; 95% 置信区间 (CI) 0.82-1.33)、中风或全身性栓塞(RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.27-2.22)或主要围手术期并发症(RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.28-5.89)方面没有差异。单用CA的手术总时间更短(平均差异48.45分钟;95% CI 23.06-74.62):结论:与单纯 CA 相比,联合 CA 和 LAAC 治疗房颤的无心律失常生存率、中风率和主要围手术期并发症发生率相似。对于有中度至高度出血事件风险的患者来说,联合策略可能同样安全有效,从而无需长期口服抗凝药。
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology is an international publication devoted to fostering research in and development of interventional techniques and therapies for the management of cardiac arrhythmias. It is designed primarily to present original research studies and scholarly scientific reviews of basic and applied science and clinical research in this field. The Journal will adopt a multidisciplinary approach to link physical, experimental, and clinical sciences as applied to the development of and practice in interventional electrophysiology. The Journal will examine techniques ranging from molecular, chemical and pharmacologic therapies to device and ablation technology. Accordingly, original research in clinical, epidemiologic and basic science arenas will be considered for publication. Applied engineering or physical science studies pertaining to interventional electrophysiology will be encouraged. The Journal is committed to providing comprehensive and detailed treatment of major interventional therapies and innovative techniques in a structured and clinically relevant manner. It is directed at clinical practitioners and investigators in the rapidly growing field of interventional electrophysiology. The editorial staff and board reflect this bias and include noted international experts in this area with a wealth of expertise in basic and clinical investigation. Peer review of all submissions, conflict of interest guidelines and periodic editorial board review of all Journal policies have been established.