Amplatzer Amulet和Watchman 2.5治疗左心耳闭塞的安全性和有效性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 1.3
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1111/pace.14576
Ming-Zhen Zhu, Hao Song, Guang-Min Song, Xiao Bai
{"title":"Amplatzer Amulet和Watchman 2.5治疗左心耳闭塞的安全性和有效性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ming-Zhen Zhu,&nbsp;Hao Song,&nbsp;Guang-Min Song,&nbsp;Xiao Bai","doi":"10.1111/pace.14576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) to decrease the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); however, certain complications remain a concern. Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman are the two most popular used devices for preventing stroke in patients with NVAF. We assessed the safety and efficacy of LAAO using the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy outcomes associated with the use of the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman 2.5. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale has been utilized to assess the quality of study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis includes seven studies involving 2926 patients (1418 patients with an amulet and 1508 with a Watchman 2.5). Generally, adverse event rates for both systems were minimal. No significant differences between the two devices were found in safety (pericardial effusion, device embolization, and cardiac tamponade) or efficacy outcomes (death, TIA, stroke, major/minor bleeding, device leak, and thromboembolic events).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The data suggest LAAO is a safe procedure, regardless of which device was used. LAAO devices generally have low complication rates. Outcomes were comparable between the two groups with no significant differences in their safety or efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":520740,"journal":{"name":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","volume":" ","pages":"1237-1247"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman 2.5 for left atrial appendage occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ming-Zhen Zhu,&nbsp;Hao Song,&nbsp;Guang-Min Song,&nbsp;Xiao Bai\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pace.14576\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) to decrease the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); however, certain complications remain a concern. Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman are the two most popular used devices for preventing stroke in patients with NVAF. We assessed the safety and efficacy of LAAO using the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy outcomes associated with the use of the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman 2.5. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale has been utilized to assess the quality of study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis includes seven studies involving 2926 patients (1418 patients with an amulet and 1508 with a Watchman 2.5). Generally, adverse event rates for both systems were minimal. No significant differences between the two devices were found in safety (pericardial effusion, device embolization, and cardiac tamponade) or efficacy outcomes (death, TIA, stroke, major/minor bleeding, device leak, and thromboembolic events).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The data suggest LAAO is a safe procedure, regardless of which device was used. LAAO devices generally have low complication rates. Outcomes were comparable between the two groups with no significant differences in their safety or efficacy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1237-1247\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14576\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:左心耳闭塞(LAAO)是口服抗凝(OAC)的替代方案,可降低非瓣膜性心房颤动(NVAF)患者的卒中风险;然而,某些并发症仍然令人担忧。Amplatzer Amulet和Watchman是预防非瓣膜性房颤患者中风最常用的两种设备。我们使用Amplatzer护身符和Watchman来评估LAAO的安全性和有效性。方法:采用meta分析比较使用Amplatzer Amulet和Watchman 2.5的安全性和有效性结果。纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表已被用来评估研究的质量。结果:meta分析包括7项研究,涉及2926例患者(1418例使用护身符,1508例使用Watchman 2.5)。总的来说,两种系统的不良事件发生率都很低。两种器械在安全性(心包积液、器械栓塞和心包填塞)或疗效(死亡、TIA、中风、大出血/小出血、器械泄漏和血栓栓塞事件)方面无显著差异。结论:数据提示,无论使用何种器械,LAAO都是安全的手术。LAAO装置的并发症发生率一般较低。两组之间的结果具有可比性,在安全性或有效性方面没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman 2.5 for left atrial appendage occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) to decrease the risk of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF); however, certain complications remain a concern. Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman are the two most popular used devices for preventing stroke in patients with NVAF. We assessed the safety and efficacy of LAAO using the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman.

Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy outcomes associated with the use of the Amplatzer Amulet and Watchman 2.5. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale has been utilized to assess the quality of study.

Results: The meta-analysis includes seven studies involving 2926 patients (1418 patients with an amulet and 1508 with a Watchman 2.5). Generally, adverse event rates for both systems were minimal. No significant differences between the two devices were found in safety (pericardial effusion, device embolization, and cardiac tamponade) or efficacy outcomes (death, TIA, stroke, major/minor bleeding, device leak, and thromboembolic events).

Conclusions: The data suggest LAAO is a safe procedure, regardless of which device was used. LAAO devices generally have low complication rates. Outcomes were comparable between the two groups with no significant differences in their safety or efficacy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信