Litcius/Paper detail

Intracardiac echocardiography versus transesophageal echocardiography for left atrial appendage closure: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review.

Aravdeep Jhand, Abhishek Thandra, Yeongjin Gwon, Mohit K. Turagam, Mahi L. Ashwath, Pradeep Yadav, Fawaz Alenezi, Jalal Garg, J. Dawn Abbott, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, Manish Parikh, Robert J. Sommer, Poonam Velagapudi

2020PubMed23 citationsOpen Access PDF

Abstract

-Vasc (4.4 ± 0.3 for ICE vs 4.5 ± 0.3 for TEE, P = 0.60) and HAS-BLED (3.2 ± 0.4 vs 3.1 ± 0.6, P = 0.78) scores were comparable between the two groups. There was no significant difference in procedure success rate (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02, P= 0.31) and periprocedural complications (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.59-1.23, P = 0.39). No significant difference was observed in procedure duration, fluoroscopy time and contrast volume used while a trend towards decreased hospital length of stay was seen with the use of ICE. Thus, our updated meta-analysis shows ICE is as effective and safe as TEE for implantation of LAAC devices.

Topics & Concepts

MedicineAppendageIntracardiac injectionCardiologyMeta-analysisInternal medicineClosure (psychology)Left atriumAtrial fibrillationRadiologyAnatomyEconomicsMarket economyAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Intracardiac echocardiography versus transesophageal echocardiography for left atrial appendage closure: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review. | Litcius