Mostafa Najim, Mostafa Reda Mostafa, Mohamed Magdi Eid, Ahmad Alabdouh, Ahmed K Awad, Mostafa Elbanna, Sarah Mohamed, Richard Alweis, Karim M Al-Azizi, Mamas A Mamas
{"title":"与Watchman 2.5相比,新一代Watchman FLX器械的疗效和安全性:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Mostafa Najim, Mostafa Reda Mostafa, Mohamed Magdi Eid, Ahmad Alabdouh, Ahmed K Awad, Mostafa Elbanna, Sarah Mohamed, Richard Alweis, Karim M Al-Azizi, Mamas A Mamas","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The first-generation Watchman 2.5 (W 2.5)<sup>TM</sup> presented several limitations, such as challenges in implantation within complex left atrial appendage (LAA) anatomies, higher incidence of peri-device leak, device recapture, and device-related thrombus (DRT). The newer generation Watchman FLX (W-FLX)<sup>TM</sup> was introduced with a modified design aiming to overcome these limitations. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to conduct a comparative assessment of the safety and efficacy of the W-FLX and 2.5 devices in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The meta-analysis was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA). Studies were located through a search strategy utilizing PubMed, Cochrane, Google scholar and MEDLINE from inception to March 2023, with a primary objective to compare the safety and efficacy of the W-FLX and W 2.5 devices. After applying the selection criteria, five studies were included in this analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included five studies comprising 54,727 patients. The W-FLX is associated with an increase in procedural success (OR 7.49 [95% CI 1.98-28.26, P = 0.02; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 0%]), and a significant reduction in mortality (OR 0.52 [95% CI 0.51-0.54, P<0.01; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 0%], major bleeding 0.57 [95% CI 0.51-0.64, P<0.01; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 0%]), device embolism (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.18-0.70, P = 0.02; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 0%]), and pericardial effusion (OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.26-0.41, P<0.01; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 0%]). The rates of DRT and stroke were similar between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to the W 2.5, the W-FLX was associated with a higher procedural success rate and significantly reduced adverse outcomes including mortality, major bleeding, device embolization, and pericardial effusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":7427,"journal":{"name":"American journal of cardiovascular disease","volume":"13 5","pages":"291-299"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10658049/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of the new generation Watchman FLX device compared to the Watchman 2.5: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mostafa Najim, Mostafa Reda Mostafa, Mohamed Magdi Eid, Ahmad Alabdouh, Ahmed K Awad, Mostafa Elbanna, Sarah Mohamed, Richard Alweis, Karim M Al-Azizi, Mamas A Mamas\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The first-generation Watchman 2.5 (W 2.5)<sup>TM</sup> presented several limitations, such as challenges in implantation within complex left atrial appendage (LAA) anatomies, higher incidence of peri-device leak, device recapture, and device-related thrombus (DRT). The newer generation Watchman FLX (W-FLX)<sup>TM</sup> was introduced with a modified design aiming to overcome these limitations. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to conduct a comparative assessment of the safety and efficacy of the W-FLX and 2.5 devices in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The meta-analysis was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA). Studies were located through a search strategy utilizing PubMed, Cochrane, Google scholar and MEDLINE from inception to March 2023, with a primary objective to compare the safety and efficacy of the W-FLX and W 2.5 devices. After applying the selection criteria, five studies were included in this analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included five studies comprising 54,727 patients. The W-FLX is associated with an increase in procedural success (OR 7.49 [95% CI 1.98-28.26, P = 0.02; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 0%]), and a significant reduction in mortality (OR 0.52 [95% CI 0.51-0.54, P<0.01; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 0%], major bleeding 0.57 [95% CI 0.51-0.64, P<0.01; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 0%]), device embolism (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.18-0.70, P = 0.02; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 0%]), and pericardial effusion (OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.26-0.41, P<0.01; <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> = 0%]). The rates of DRT and stroke were similar between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to the W 2.5, the W-FLX was associated with a higher procedural success rate and significantly reduced adverse outcomes including mortality, major bleeding, device embolization, and pericardial effusion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of cardiovascular disease\",\"volume\":\"13 5\",\"pages\":\"291-299\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10658049/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of cardiovascular disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of cardiovascular disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
第一代Watchman 2.5 (w2.5)TM存在一些局限性,例如在复杂的左心耳(LAA)解剖结构中植入的挑战,器械周围泄漏、器械再捕获和器械相关血栓(DRT)的发生率较高。新一代Watchman FLX (W-FLX)TM采用了改进的设计,旨在克服这些限制。本荟萃分析的目的是对W-FLX和2.5装置在临床实践中的安全性和有效性进行比较评估。方法:按照系统评价和meta分析方案的首选报告项目(PRISMA)进行meta分析。研究通过PubMed、Cochrane、Google scholar和MEDLINE的搜索策略进行定位,从开始到2023年3月,主要目的是比较W- flx和w2.5设备的安全性和有效性。在应用选择标准后,本分析纳入了5项研究。结果:该分析包括5项研究,54,727例患者。W-FLX与手术成功率增加相关(OR 7.49 [95% CI 1.98-28.26, P = 0.02;I2 = 0%]),死亡率显著降低(OR 0.52 [95% CI 0.51-0.54, PI2 = 0%],大出血0.57 [95% CI 0.51-0.64, PI2 = 0%]),器械栓塞(OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.18-0.70, P = 0.02;I2 = 0%])和心包积液(OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.26-0.41, PI2 = 0%])。两组之间DRT和中风的发生率相似。结论:与w2.5相比,W- flx具有更高的手术成功率,并显著降低了包括死亡率、大出血、器械栓塞和心包积液在内的不良后果。
Efficacy and safety of the new generation Watchman FLX device compared to the Watchman 2.5: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Introduction: The first-generation Watchman 2.5 (W 2.5)TM presented several limitations, such as challenges in implantation within complex left atrial appendage (LAA) anatomies, higher incidence of peri-device leak, device recapture, and device-related thrombus (DRT). The newer generation Watchman FLX (W-FLX)TM was introduced with a modified design aiming to overcome these limitations. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to conduct a comparative assessment of the safety and efficacy of the W-FLX and 2.5 devices in clinical practice.
Method: The meta-analysis was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA). Studies were located through a search strategy utilizing PubMed, Cochrane, Google scholar and MEDLINE from inception to March 2023, with a primary objective to compare the safety and efficacy of the W-FLX and W 2.5 devices. After applying the selection criteria, five studies were included in this analysis.
Results: The analysis included five studies comprising 54,727 patients. The W-FLX is associated with an increase in procedural success (OR 7.49 [95% CI 1.98-28.26, P = 0.02; I2 = 0%]), and a significant reduction in mortality (OR 0.52 [95% CI 0.51-0.54, P<0.01; I2 = 0%], major bleeding 0.57 [95% CI 0.51-0.64, P<0.01; I2 = 0%]), device embolism (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.18-0.70, P = 0.02; I2 = 0%]), and pericardial effusion (OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.26-0.41, P<0.01; I2 = 0%]). The rates of DRT and stroke were similar between the two groups.
Conclusion: Compared to the W 2.5, the W-FLX was associated with a higher procedural success rate and significantly reduced adverse outcomes including mortality, major bleeding, device embolization, and pericardial effusion.