Impact of intracardiac echocardiography versus transesophageal echocardiography guidance on left atrial appendage occlusion procedures: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundIntracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly used during left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as an alternative to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of ICE versus TEE guidance during LAAO on procedural characteristics and acute outcomes, as well the presence of peri‐device leaks and residual septal defects during follow‐up.MethodsAll studies comparing ICE‐guided versus TEE‐guided LAAO were identified. The primary outcomes were procedural efficacy and occurrence of procedure‐related complications. Secondary outcomes included lab efficiency (defined as a reduction in in‐room time), procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and presence of peri‐device leaks and residual interatrial septal defects (IASD) during follow‐up.ResultsTwelve studies (n = 5637) were included. There were no differences in procedural success (98.3% vs. 97.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42–1.27, p = .27; I2 = 0%) or adverse events (4.5% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.81 95% CI 0.56–1.16, p = .25; I2 = 0%) between the ICE‐guided and TEE‐guided groups. ICE guidance reduced in in‐room time (mean‐weighted 28.6‐min reduction in in‐room time) without differences in procedural time or fluoroscopy time. There were no differences in peri‐device leak (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68–1.27, p = 0.64); however, an increased prevalence of residual IASD was observed with ICE‐guided versus TEE‐guided LAAO (46.3% vs. 34.2%; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.05–4.75, p = 0.04).ConclusionICE guidance is associated with similar procedural efficacy and safety, but could result in improved lab efficiency (as established by a significant reduction in in‐room time). No differences in the rate of periprocedural leaks were found. A higher prevalence of residual interatrial septal defects was observed with ICE guidance.