科研速览 · Science Skim继续刷下去 · Keep skimming →
◆ Annals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026-09-01

WATCHMAN and Amplatzer Amulet for left atrial appendage occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Samir Maher Shamieh, Barakat Wael Alsaqqa, Armstrong Nicholas Kpachi, Mohamed Kamal Said, Krishnanjali Kishore, Jui Kanetkar, Iqra Tariq, Muskan Shrestha, Nima Rasti, Deng Siang Lee, Roya Lalzai, Ashesh Das, Malik Sohail Riaz, Muneeb Khawar

一句话结论 · In one sentence

WATCHMAN and Amulet demonstrate no significant difference in efficacy and safety for most LAAC outcomes, including stroke and major bleeding. However, WATCHMAN is associated with a significantly lower risk of pericardial effusion but a higher risk of device thrombosis.

原始摘要(英文原文)· Original abstract
BACKGROUND: WATCHMAN and Amplatzer Amulet devices are an effective alternative to oral anticoagulation for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. This study aims to compare their safety and efficacy. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and ScienceDirect, were searched from inception to May 2025 for comparative studies in NVAF patients. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed via I 2 statistic; statistical significance was at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. No significant differences were found in ischemic stroke (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.83-1.46; P = 0.51; I 2 = 0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75-1.14; P = 0.45; I 2 = 0%), major bleeding (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90-1.38; P = 0.33; I 2 = 0%), minor bleeding (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.61; P = 0.59; I 2 = 22%), cardiac mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.39-1.93; P = 0.72; I 2 = 51%), major procedure-related complications (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44-1.96; P = 0.55; I 2 = 62%), cardiac tamponade (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.25-1.29; P = 0.18; I 2 = 30%), device embolization (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.30-1.86; P = 0.53; I 2 = 0%), vascular complications (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.34-1.52; P = 0.38; I 2 = 0%), or peridevice leak (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56-1.36; P = 0.55; I 2 = 77%). WATCHMAN showed higher device thrombosis (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.20-2.49; P = 0.003; I 2 = 0%) but lower pericardial effusion (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.76; P = 0.002; I 2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: WATCHMAN and Amulet demonstrate no significant difference in efficacy and safety for most LAAC outcomes, including stroke and major bleeding. However, WATCHMAN is associated with a significantly lower risk of pericardial effusion but a higher risk of device thrombosis.
读原文 · Read the paper ↗

AI 追问PRO

登录后使用 AI 追问

讨论区

登录后参与讨论

相关论文 · Related

WATCHMAN and Amplatzer Amulet for left atrial appendage occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. — 科研速览 Science Skim