Mariana R C Clemente, Denilsa D P Navalha, Vinicius Bittar, Thomaz Alexandre Costa, Gabriel Prusch Fernandes, Livia Teixeira Martins Silva
{"title":"联合左心房阑尾闭塞术和导管消融术治疗心房颤动与单独左心房阑尾闭塞术的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
背景:有关左心房阑尾闭塞术(LAAO)和导管消融术(CA)联合治疗心房颤动(AF)效果的数据仍然有限。我们旨在进行一项系统综述和荟萃分析,比较 LAAO 和 CA 与单独 LAAO 的效果:我们系统地检索了 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆中关于房颤患者联合 LAAO 和 CA 与单独 LAAO 比较的研究。统计分析使用 R 软件 4.3.1 版进行。我们将二元结果的几率比(OR)与95%置信区间(CI)进行了汇总:我们纳入了 8 项研究,共 51 802 名患者,其中 1375 人(2.6%)接受了 LAAO 和 CA 联合术。在大出血(OR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.09, 3.41; p = 0.52; I2 = 0 %)、主要不良心血管事件(OR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.40, 1.93; p = 0.74; I2 = 0 %)、中风(OR 1.03; 95 % CI 0.35, 3.00; p = 0.96; I2 = 0 %)、血栓栓塞(OR 0.60; 95 % CI 0.18, 1.98; p = 0.40; I2 = 0 %)、轻微出血(OR 1.32; 95 % CI 0.63, 2.80; p = 0.46; I2 = 0 %),或心包积液(OR 1.18; 95 % CI 0.60, 2.33; p = 0.63; I2 = 24 %):在这项观察性研究的荟萃分析中,联合 LAAO 和 CA 治疗房颤在疗效和安全性方面与单独 LAAO 相似。需要进一步开展大型随机对照试验,以探讨联合使用这些手术的长期效果。
Combined left atrial appendage occlusion and catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation versus isolated left atrial appendage occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.