Combined left atrial appendage occlusion and catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation versus isolated left atrial appendage occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Mariana R C Clemente, Denilsa D P Navalha, Vinicius Bittar, Thomaz Alexandre Costa, Gabriel Prusch Fernandes, Livia Teixeira Martins Silva
{"title":"Combined left atrial appendage occlusion and catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation versus isolated left atrial appendage occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Mariana R C Clemente, Denilsa D P Navalha, Vinicius Bittar, Thomaz Alexandre Costa, Gabriel Prusch Fernandes, Livia Teixeira Martins Silva","doi":"10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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; I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.40, 1.93; p = 0.74; I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %), stroke (OR 1.03; 95 % CI 0.35, 3.00; p = 0.96; I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %), thromboembolism (OR 0.60; 95 % CI 0.18, 1.98; p = 0.40; I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %), minor bleeding (OR 1.32; 95 % CI 0.63, 2.80; p = 0.46; I<sup>2</sup> = 0 %), or pericardial effusion (OR 1.18; 95 % CI 0.60, 2.33; p = 0.63; I<sup>2</sup> = 24 %).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13710,"journal":{"name":"International journal of cardiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132597","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Cardiology is devoted to cardiology in the broadest sense. Both basic research and clinical papers can be submitted. The journal serves the interest of both practicing clinicians and researchers.
In addition to original papers, we are launching a range of new manuscript types, including Consensus and Position Papers, Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses, and Short communications. Case reports are no longer acceptable. Controversial techniques, issues on health policy and social medicine are discussed and serve as useful tools for encouraging debate.