RESUMEN
Surgical left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is being used increasingly in the setting of atrial fibrillation but has been associated with procedural complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the outcomes of surgical LAAO with those of no LAAO and the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) using the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was undertaken for relevant studies published between January 1, 2003, and August 15, 2021. Primary clinical outcomes were all-cause mortality, embolic events, and stroke. Secondary clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), postoperative atrial fibrillation, postoperative complications, reoperation for bleeding, and major bleeding. There was a statistically significant 34% reduction in incidence of embolic events (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.77, p < 0.001) and a significant 42% reduction in risk of MACE (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.88, p = 0.01) in patients who underwent LAAO.Surgical LAAO has the potential to reduce embolic events and MACE in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for atrial fibrillation. However, complete replacement of DOACs and warfarin therapy with surgical LAAO is unlikely despite its non-inferiority in terms of minimizing all-cause mortality, embolic events, MACE, major bleeding, and stroke in patients on oral anticoagulation therapies.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous (S-ICD) and transvenous (TV-ICD) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices effectively reduce the incidence of sudden cardiac death in patients at a high risk of ventricular arrhythmias. This study aimed to evaluate the safe replacement of TV-ICD with S-ICD based on updated recent evidence. METHODS: We systematically searched EMBASE, JSTOR, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library on 30 July 2021 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 26 studies that examined 7542 (58.27%) patients with S-ICD and 5400 (41.72%) with TV-ICD. The findings indicated that, compared to patients with TV-ICD, patients with S-ICD had a lower incidence of defibrillation lead failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.98; p = 0.05), lead displacement or fracture (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.86; p = 0.0003), pneumothorax and/or hemothorax (OR: 0.22, 95% CI 0.05, 0.97, p = 0.05), device failure (OR: 0.70, 95% CI 0.51, 0.95, p = 0.02), all-cause mortality (OR: 0.44 [95% CI 0.32, 0.60], p < 0.001), and lead erosion (OR: 0.01, 95% CI 0.00, 0.05, p < 0.001). Patients with TV-ICD had a higher incidence of pocket complications than patients with S-ICD (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.23-3.69; p = 0.007) and a higher but insignificant incidence of inappropriate sensing (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 0.97-12.86; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The S-ICD algorithm was safer and more effective than the TV-ICD system as it minimized the incidence of pocket complications, lead displacement or fracture, inappropriate sensing, defibrillation lead failure, pneumothorax/hemothorax, device failure, lead erosion, and all-cause mortality. Future studies should explore the scope of integrating novel algorithms with the current S-ICD systems to improve cardiovascular outcomes.
