Comparison of left atrial appendage parameters using computed tomography vs. transesophageal echocardiography for watchman device implantation: a systematic review & meta-analysis

References

• Akinapelli A, Bansal O, Chen J P, et al. Left atrial appendage closure–The WATCHMAN device. Current Cardiology Reviews. 2015;11(4):334–340. Current cardiology reviews
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moussa Pacha H, Al-Khadra Y, Soud M, et al. Percutaneous devices for left atrial appendage occlusion: a contemporary review. World J Cardiol. 2019;11(2):57–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koifman E, Lipinski MJ, Escarcega RO, et al. Comparison of watchman device with new oral anti-coagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a network meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2016;205:17–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reddy V, Sievert H, Halperin J, et al. PROTECT AF steering committee and investigators. percutaneous left atrial appendage closure vs warfarin for atrial fibrillation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312(19):1988–1998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes DR, Kar S, Price MJ, et al. Prospective randomized evaluation of the watchman left atrial appendage closure device in patients with atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy: the PREVAIL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(1):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boersma LV, Schmidt B, Betts TR, et al. Implant success and safety of left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device: peri-procedural outcomes from the EWOLUTION registry. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(31):2465–2474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boersma LV, Ince H, Kische S, et al. Efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage closure with WATCHMAN in patients with or without contraindication to oral anticoagulation: 1-year follow-up outcome data of the EWOLUTION trial. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14(9):1302–1308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes DR Jr., Reddy VY, Gordon NT, et al. Long-Term safety and efficacy in continued access left atrial appendage closure registries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(23):2878–2889.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reddy VY, Möbius-Winkler S, Miller MA, et al. Left atrial appendage closure with the watchman device in patients with a contraindication for oral anticoagulation: the ASAP study (ASA plavix feasibility study with watchman left atrial appendage closure technology). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(25):2551–2556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albaghdadi M, Kadlec A, Adler A, et al. Peri-device leaks after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: clinical significance and unmet diagnostic needs. Structural Heart. 2020;4(6):475–481.
   Google Scholar
• Afzal MR, Gabriels JK, and Jackson GG, et al. Temporal changes and clinical implications of delayed peridevice leak following left atrial appendage closure. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2022;8(1):15–25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacep.2021.06.018. Epub 2021 Aug 25. PMID: 34454881.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dukkipati SR, Kar S, Holmes DR, et al. Device-related thrombus after left atrial appendage closure: incidence, predictors, and outcomes. Circulation. 2018;138(9):874–885.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budge LP, Shaffer KM, Moorman JR, et al. Analysis of in vivo left atrial appendage morphology in patients with atrial fibrillation: a direct comparison of transesophageal echocardiography, planar cardiac CT, and segmented three-dimensional cardiac CT. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2008;23(2):87–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saw J, Fahmy P, Spencer R, et al. Comparing measurements of CT angiography, TEE, and fluoroscopy of the left atrial appendage for percutaneous closure. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2016;27(4):414–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajwani A, Nelson AJ, Shirazi MG, et al. CT sizing for left atrial appendage closure is associated with favourable outcomes for procedural safety. European Heart Journal-Cardiovascular Imaging. 2017;18(12):1361–1368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hell MM, Achenbach S, Yoo IS, et al. 3D printing for sizing left atrial appendage closure device: head-to-head comparison with computed tomography and transoesophageal echocardiography. EuroIntervention. 2017;13(10):1234–1241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu B, Betancor J, Sato K, et al. Computed tomography measurement of the left atrial appendage for optimal sizing of the watchman device. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2018;12(1):50–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eng MH, Wang DD, Greenbaum AB, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of 3‐dimensional computed tomography guidance versus TEE data for left atrial appendage occlusion (PRO3DLAAO). Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. 2018;92(2):401–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obasare E, Mainigi SK, Morris DL, et al. CT based 3D printing is superior to transesophageal echocardiography for pre-procedure planning in left atrial appendage device closure. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;34(5):821–831.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Research methods and reporting. Bmj. 2009;8:332–336.
   Google Scholar
• Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Jama. 2000;283(15):2008–2012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5(1):1–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee CH, Cook S, Lee JS, et al. Comparison of two meta-analysis methods: inverse-variance-weighted average and weighted sum of Z-scores. Genomics Inform. 2016;14(4):173.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–1558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efron B. The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. SIAM. 1982 Jan 1.
   Google Scholar
• Wells GA, Shea B, and O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2000. Oxford. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. [cited 2009 Oct 19].
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statiscal power analysis for the behavioral sciences, secon. (Ed.^(Eds). New Jersey:La Wrence Erlabaum Associates, Publishers;1988.
   Google Scholar
• Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj. 1997;315(7109):629–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow DH, Bieliauskas G, Sawaya FJ, et al. A comparative study of different imaging modalities for successful percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. Open Heart. 2017;4(2):e000627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goitein O, Fink N, Hay I, et al. Cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) predicts left atrial appendage occluder device size and procedure outcome. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;33(5):739–747.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar