错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Catheter ablation alone versus catheter ablation with combined percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Joey Junarta,
  • Muhammad U. Siddiqui,
  • Ehab Abaza,
  • Peter Zhang,
  • Aarash Roshandel,
  • Chirag R. Barbhaiya,
  • Lior Jankelson,
  • David S. Park,
  • Douglas Holmes,
  • Larry A. Chinitz,
  • Anthony Aizer

摘要

Background

Combined catheter ablation (CA) with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) may produce comprehensive treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) whereby rhythm control is achieved and stroke risk is reduced without the need for chronic oral anticoagulation. However, the efficacy and safety of this strategy is still controversial.

Methods

This meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Eligible studies reported outcomes in patients with AF who underwent combined CA and LAAC vs CA alone. Studies performing CA without pulmonary vein isolation were excluded.

Results

Eight studies comprising 1878 patients were included (2 RCT, 6 observational). When comparing combined CA and LAAC vs CA alone, pooled results showed no difference in arrhythmia recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82–1.33), stroke or systemic embolism (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.27–2.22), or major periprocedural complications (RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.28–5.89). Total procedure time was shorter with CA alone (mean difference 48.45 min; 95% CI 23.06–74.62).

Conclusion

Combined CA with LAAC for AF is associated with similar rates of arrhythmia-free survival, stroke, and major periprocedural complications when compared to CA alone. A combined strategy may be as safe and efficacious for patients at moderate to high risk for bleeding events to negate the need for chronic oral anticoagulation.

Graphical Abstract