Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2018
Real-world experience comparing two common left atrial appendage closure devices.
Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Clinical efficacy and safety comparison of Watchman device versus ACP/Amulet device for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A study-level meta-analysis of clinical trials.Clinical cardiology · 2023Pooled it
- Observed versus Expected Ischemic and Bleeding Events Following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.The American journal of cardiology · 2020Pooled it
- Short-Term Antiplatelet Versus Anticoagulant Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2020Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis Comparing WatchmanFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020Pooled it
- WATCHMAN and Amplatzer Amulet for left atrial appendage occlusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Review
- Clinical incidence and relevance of incomplete endothelialization in atrial fibrillation patients with Left Atrial Appendage Closure.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Comparative Profiles of the WATCHMAN™ and Amplatzer™ Cardiac Plug/Amplatzer™ Amulet™ Devices for Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2024Review
- Article
- Discriminating factors excluding patients from a catheter-based left atrial appendage closure and an outcome analysis of non-intervened and intervened patients.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2024Article
- Comparison between Amulet and Watchman left atrial appendage closure devices: A real-world, single center experience.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Article
- Reduced plasma level of basic fibroblast growth factor is associated with incomplete device endothelialization at six months following left atrial appendage closure.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Article
- Combined pulmonary vein stenosis stenting and left atrial appendage occlusion in a patient with hemoptysis after atrial fibrillation ablation.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2020Article
- Cerebrovascular events, bleeding complications and device related thrombi in atrial fibrillation patients with chronic kidney disease and left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN™ device.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe interventional left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a guideline-conform alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with OAC ineligibility. It was aimed to directly compare two contemporary devices in a real-world patient population.
methodsLAAC was conducted in two centres between 2010 and 2014 as well as between 2014 and 2017, respectively, in a standard fashion based on the specific manufacturer's recommendations. Baseline characteristics, procedural data and event rates during intra-hospital and 6 months follow-up were registered in a retrospective approach, and analysed in device-related groups.
resultsA total of 189 patients presented for LAAC device implantation. Baseline characteristics were mostly evenly distributed. In 148 patients, a Watchman™ device (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) was successfully implanted, an Amplatzer™ Amulet™ (St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA) in 34 patients (96.1 and 97.1%, respectively; p = 1.00). Major access site bleedings were more frequent in the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ group (8.9 versus 1.4%; p = 0.046). No intra-hospital thromboembolic event was present. During 6 months follow-up, peri-device leaks > 5 mm and thromboembolic events were uncommon (each p = n.s.).
conclusionsWhile procedural success was equally high with both contemporary devices, complications during follow-up were rare, and evenly distributed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.