Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34712772›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2021

Comparison between Amulet and Watchman left atrial appendage closure devices: A real-world, single center experience.

Mohammed Saad, Osama Risha, Makoto Sano, Thomas Fink, Christian-Hendrik Heeger, Julia Vogler, Vanessa Sciacca, Charlotte Eitel, Thomas Stiermaier, Alexander Joost and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Mohammed SaadMedical Clinic III, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
Osama RishaMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Division of Electrophysiology, Lübeck, Germany.
Makoto SanoMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Division of Electrophysiology, Lübeck, Germany.
Thomas FinkMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Christian-Hendrik HeegerMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Division of Electrophysiology, Lübeck, Germany.
Julia VoglerMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Division of Electrophysiology, Lübeck, Germany.
Vanessa SciaccaMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Division of Electrophysiology, Lübeck, Germany.
Charlotte EitelMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Division of Electrophysiology, Lübeck, Germany.
Thomas StiermaierMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Alexander JoostMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Ahmad KeelaniMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Division of Electrophysiology, Lübeck, Germany.
Georg FuernauMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Roza Meyer-SaraeiMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Karl-Heinz KuckMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Division of Electrophysiology, Lübeck, Germany.
Ingo EitelMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Roland Richard TilzMedical Clinic II, University Heart Center Lübeck, Division of Electrophysiology, Lübeck, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData reporting a head-to-head comparison between Amulet and Watchman devices are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the Watchman™ versus Amulet™ left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices in a consecutive, industry-independent registry.

methodsPatients who underwent LAAC using Watchman or Amulet devices from January 2014 to December 2019 at the University Heart Center Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany were included in the present analysis. Primary endpoints included periprocedural complications (in-hospital death, pericardial tamponade, device embolization, stroke, major bleeding and vascular access complications), and complications during long-term follow-up (ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, thromboembolism, device thrombus, bleeding and death).

resultsAfter matching the patients for age (±5 years), gender, CHA2DS2Vasc score (±1) and HASBLED score (±1), each of the Watchman and the Amulet groups included 113 patients. Patients in the Amulet group had significantly more periprocedural complications (2.7% vs 10.6%, p = 0.029; respectively) and more major bleeding complications (0% vs 5.3%, p = 0.029; respectively). During long-term follow-up, the rate of events was comparable between the Watchman and Amulet groups (18.3% versus 20.8%, p = 0.729; respectively).

conclusionAmulet LAAC device was associated with increased periprocedural complications as compared to Watchman LAAC device. On long-term follow-up, both devices showed comparable efficacy and safety.

Indexed as

ACP, Amplatzer Cardiac PlugAF, Atrial fibrillationAmuletAnti-coagulationAtrial fibrillationLAAC, Left atrial appendage closureLAA, Left atrial appendageLeft atrial appendage closureMACCE, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular eventsOAC, Oral anticoagulantsTEE, transesophageal echocardiographyWatchman

Identifiers

PMID34712772
PMCPMC8529070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.