Suppr超能文献

联合左心耳封堵与导管消融治疗心房颤动对比单纯左心耳封堵:一项系统评价与荟萃分析。

Combined left atrial appendage occlusion and catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation versus isolated left atrial appendage occlusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Clemente Mariana R C, Navalha Denilsa D P, Bittar Vinicius, Costa Thomaz Alexandre, Fernandes Gabriel Prusch, Silva Livia Teixeira Martins

机构信息

Petrópolis School of Medicine, Petrópolis, Brazil.

Department of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States of America.

出版信息

Int J Cardiol. 2025 Feb 15;421:132597. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132597. Epub 2024 Nov 11.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Data on the effects of combined left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) and catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) remain limited. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LAAO and CA versus isolated LAAO.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing combined LAAO and CA versus isolated LAAO in patients with atrial fibrillation. Statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.1. We pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes.

RESULTS

We included eight studies comprising 51,802 patients, of whom 1375 (2.6 %) underwent combined LAAO and CA. There were no significant differences between combined LAAO and CA versus isolated LAAO in terms of major bleeding (OR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.09, 3.41; p = 0.52; I = 0 %), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.40, 1.93; p = 0.74; I = 0 %), stroke (OR 1.03; 95 % CI 0.35, 3.00; p = 0.96; I = 0 %), thromboembolism (OR 0.60; 95 % CI 0.18, 1.98; p = 0.40; I = 0 %), minor bleeding (OR 1.32; 95 % CI 0.63, 2.80; p = 0.46; I = 0 %), or pericardial effusion (OR 1.18; 95 % CI 0.60, 2.33; p = 0.63; I = 24 %).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis of observational studies, combined LAAO and CA for AF was similar to isolated LAAO in terms of efficacy and safety. Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to explore the long-term effects of combining these procedures.

摘要

背景

关于左心耳封堵术(LAAO)联合导管消融术(CA)治疗心房颤动(AF)效果的数据仍然有限。我们旨在进行一项系统评价和荟萃分析,比较LAAO联合CA与单纯LAAO的疗效。

方法

我们系统检索了PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆,以查找比较LAAO联合CA与单纯LAAO治疗心房颤动患者的研究。使用R软件4.3.1版进行统计分析。我们汇总了二分类结局的比值比(OR)及其95%置信区间(CI)。

结果

我们纳入了八项研究,共51802例患者,其中1375例(2.6%)接受了LAAO联合CA治疗。在主要出血(OR 0.55;95%CI 0.09,3.41;p = 0.52;I² = 0%)、主要不良心血管事件(OR 0.88;95%CI 0.40,1.93;p = 0.74;I² = 0%)、卒中(OR 1.03;95%CI 0.35,3.00;p = 0.96;I² = 0%)、血栓栓塞(OR 0.60;95%CI 0.18,1.98;p = 0.40;I² = 0%)、轻微出血(OR 1.32;95%CI 0.63,2.80;p = 0.46;I² = 0%)或心包积液(OR 1.18;95%CI 0.60,2.33;p = 0.63;I² = 24%)方面,LAAO联合CA与单纯LAAO之间无显著差异。

结论

在这项观察性研究的荟萃分析中,LAAO联合CA治疗AF在疗效和安全性方面与单纯LAAO相似。需要进一步开展大型随机对照试验,以探索联合这些手术的长期效果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验