Department of Cardiology, Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba/Instituto Universitario de Ciencias Biomédicas de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Department of Pediatrics, Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina.
Indian Heart J. 2023 Mar-Apr;75(2):145-152. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2023.01.008. Epub 2023 Feb 1.
The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and adverse events of percutaneous occlusion among patients with sufficient and deficient rims.
A systematic review of all articles published in the Pubmed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases was performed. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI were used as a measure of effect of the combination of studies. I with 95% CI was estimated to assess study heterogeneity. For the meta-analysis, a random effects model was used.
The systematic search identified ten studies which included 4355 patients; 2661 of those had sufficient rim and the remaining 1694 patients showed some rim deficiency. Implant failure rate was 4.13% CI 95% 3.53-4.72%. Compared to frequency of failures in the group with a deficient rim (5.43% CI 95% 4.35-6.50%), implant failure in patients with a sufficient rim was significantly lower (3.30% CI 95% 2.62-3.97%), OR 2.27 CI 1.34-3.83 (p 0.002). The combined adverse events were 5.19% CI 95% 4.22-6.35% vs 2.7% CI 95% 2.08-3.31% in the deficient vs sufficient rim groups respectively (OR 2.21 CI 0.93-5.29; p 0.07). Implant failures and adverse events were more frequent in patients with posterior inferior rim deficiency.
Patients presenting a posteroinferior rim deficiency are associated to both, an increased incidence of closure failure and a combined adverse events occurrence. More studies on posterior rim deficiency are necessary to ensure the feasibility and safety of the percutaneous approach.
本荟萃分析旨在比较充足和不足边缘患者经皮闭塞的疗效和不良事件。
对 Pubmed、MEDLINE 和 Google Scholar 数据库中所有已发表的文章进行系统回顾。使用优势比(OR)和 95%置信区间(CI)作为研究组合效应的衡量标准。使用 I 2 估计值评估研究异质性。对于荟萃分析,使用随机效应模型。
系统搜索确定了十项研究,共纳入 4355 例患者;其中 2661 例有充足的边缘,其余 1694 例显示出一些边缘不足。植入物失败率为 4.13%CI95%3.53-4.72%。与边缘不足组(5.43%CI95%4.35-6.50%)的失败频率相比,边缘充足组的植入物失败率显著降低(3.30%CI95%2.62-3.97%),OR2.27CI1.34-3.83(p0.002)。联合不良事件发生率分别为 5.19%CI95%4.22-6.35%和 2.7%CI95%2.08-3.31%(分别为不足边缘和充足边缘组)(OR2.21CI0.93-5.29;p0.07)。在后下边缘不足的患者中,植入物失败和不良事件的发生率更高。
后下边缘不足的患者与闭合失败发生率增加和联合不良事件发生有关。需要更多关于后缘不足的研究来确保经皮入路的可行性和安全性。