ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Intracardiac Versus Transesophageal Echocardiography for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal imaging modality for guiding left atrial appendage occlusion remains unclear.
objectivesThe authors compared the effectiveness and safety of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) vs transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) during left atrial appendage occlusion.
methodsElectronic databases were searched through November 2025 for studies that compared procedural success and safety with ICE vs TEE. We pooled data using a random-effects model to calculate ORs for categorical outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables. A subgroup analysis was performed for unadjusted and adjusted data.
resultsThe meta-analysis included 27 observational studies, of which 9 studies reported adjusted summary estimates. Procedural success was comparable in both groups (unadjusted OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.92-1.45, I
conclusionsICE and TEE demonstrated comparable procedural success. However, ICE was associated with shorter procedural duration at the expense of a higher incidence of intervention-requiring pericardial effusion and residual iatrogenic atrial septal defect. (Intracardiac versus Transesophageal Echocardiography for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis Stratified by Adjusted and Unadjusted Subgroups; CRD420251243170).
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.