Department of Cardiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, No. 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, P. R. China.
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2020 Mar 30;21(1):93-101. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.01.569.
We performed a meta-analysis comparing the procedural and outcomes data and related to left atrial appendage occlusion guided by intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients. Technical success with ICE was significantly similar to that of TEE (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI [0.62, 3.09], I = 0%, = 0.43). The peri-procedural complications showed no significant difference between the two groups (OR 0.84, 95% CI [0.57, 1.23], I = 0%, = 0.37). Mortality was similar in procedures using ICE vs TEE (OR 0.89, 95% CI [0.51, 1.57], I = 0%, P = 0.69). Landing zones, procedural time and fluoroscopic times between ICE and TEE showed no significant differences (MD 1.96, 95% CI [-0.01, 3.94], I = 90%, = 0.05; MD -1.64, 95% CI [-13.45, 10.17], I =95%, =0.79; and MD 0.49, 95% CI [-2.18, 3.16], I = 87%, = 0.72, respectively). Imaging with ICE or TEE is associated with similar outcomes in left atrial appendage occlusion procedures.
我们进行了一项荟萃分析，比较了经心腔内超声心动图（ICE）和经食管超声心动图（TEE）指导的非瓣膜性心房颤动患者左心耳封堵术的手术和结局数据。ICE 的技术成功率与 TEE 显著相似（优势比[OR]1.38，95%可信区间[0.62，3.09]，I = 0%， = 0.43）。两组围手术期并发症无显著差异（OR 0.84，95%可信区间[0.57，1.23]，I = 0%， = 0.37）。使用 ICE 与 TEE 的手术死亡率相似（OR 0.89，95%可信区间[0.51，1.57]，I = 0%，P = 0.69）。ICE 与 TEE 之间的着陆区、手术时间和透视时间无显著差异（MD 1.96，95%可信区间[-0.01，3.94]，I = 90%， = 0.05；MD -1.64，95%可信区间[-13.45，10.17]，I =95%， =0.79；MD 0.49，95%可信区间[-2.18，3.16]，I = 87%， = 0.72）。左心耳封堵术中使用 ICE 或 TEE 与相似的结果相关。
