RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 COMPARING EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF LEFT ATRIAL APPENDAGE CLOSURE DEVICES: A NETWORK META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.03.18.24304489
DO 10.1101/2024.03.18.24304489
A1 Davis, John W
A1 Mai, Steven L
A1 Harmouch, Wissam
A1 Reisler, Jenna
A1 Davis, Elizabeth
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/01/2024.03.18.24304489.abstract
AB Introduction Atrial fibrillation-related stroke is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Options for prevention include left atrial appendage closure devices or oral anticoagulation. However, it remains unclear which option may be superior overall.Methods We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all clinical trials comparing the WATCHMAN, Amplatzer Amulet (Amulet), and/or OACs. The primary outcomes of interest were any stroke and all-cause death. Safety outcomes included any thromboembolism, device embolization, and pericardial effusion. We calculated risk ratios and heterogeneity statistics for eacjowh comparison, and calculated the probability of intervention superiority where at least one comparison was significant.Results There were 441 articles identified from the search, from which 5 eligible RCTs were identified (n=1,811). Compared to OACs (all warfarin), risk of stroke was non-significantly decreased with WATCHMAN (RR=0.90, 95% CI: 0.48, 1.72, I2=13.4%), but risk with Amulet was non-significantly lower than WATCHMAN (RR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.81). However, observed risk of all-cause death was significantly lower with Amulet than OAC (RR=0.53, 95% CI: 0.33, 0.85, I2=0%) and trended towards significance versus WATCHMAN (RR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.55, 1.02, p=0.06). The P-score was 0.982, signifying a >98% probability Amulet was superior to all alternatives. Risk of thromboembolism was non-significantly increased with WATCHMAN (RR=2.04, 95% CI: 0.23, 18.4) and Amulet (RR=1.54, 95% CI: 0.11, 22.1), with head-to-head comparison favoring Amulet (RR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.17, 3.38, I2=0%). Versus WATCHMAN, device embolization risk was non-significantly elevated with Amulet (RR= 2.38, 95% CI: 0.67, 8.43, I2=0%). Finally, risk of pericardial effusion was significantly elevated with Amulet versus OACs (RR=27.0, 95% CI: 3.48, 210) and versus WATCHMAN (RR=2.11, 95% CI: 1.41, 3.17, I2=0%). The inverse P-score for Amulet (0.9995) indicated a very high probability Amulet was inferior to alternatives.Conclusion While risk of some adverse events was greater with Amulet, we estimated >98% probability Amulet is superior to alternatives in risk of death. Pooled patient-level analyses are warranted.Competing Interest StatementJohn Davis has received consulting honoraria from GE Healthcare and Novartis AG for work unrelated to any data or disease processes assessed in this manuscript. No other authors have perceived or real conflicts of interest to disclose.Funding StatementNo extramural fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData will be shared on reasonable request. Analyses, including code for R, are available at rpubs.com for reproducibility. This page is live and may be supplemented after study publication.