Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Efficacy and safety of the new generation Watchman FLX device compared to the Watchman 2.5: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Najim, Mostafa; Reda Mostafa, Mostafa; Eid, Mohamed Magdi; Alabdouh, Ahmad; Awad, Ahmed K; Elbanna, Mostafa; Mohamed, Sarah; Alweis, Richard; Al-Azizi, Karim M; Mamas, Mamas A.
Afiliação
  • Najim M; Rochester Regional Health/Unity Hospital Rochester, NY, USA.
  • Reda Mostafa M; Rochester Regional Health/Unity Hospital Rochester, NY, USA.
  • Eid MM; Rochester Regional Health/Unity Hospital Rochester, NY, USA.
  • Alabdouh A; Department of Medicine, University of Kentucky Lexington, KY, USA.
  • Awad AK; Faculty of Medicine, Ain-Shams University Cairo, Egypt.
  • Elbanna M; Rochester Regional Health/Unity Hospital Rochester, NY, USA.
  • Mohamed S; Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University Cairo, Egypt.
  • Alweis R; Rochester Regional Health/Unity Hospital Rochester, NY, USA.
  • Al-Azizi KM; Department of Cardiology, Baylor Scott & White Health - The Heart Hospital Plano, TX, USA.
  • Mamas MA; Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Keele University Keele, UK.
Am J Cardiovasc Dis ; 13(5): 291-299, 2023.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38026111
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

The first-generation Watchman 2.5 (W 2.5)TM presented several limitations, such as challenges in implantation within complex left atrial appendage (LAA) anatomies, higher incidence of peri-device leak, device recapture, and device-related thrombus (DRT). The newer generation Watchman FLX (W-FLX)TM was introduced with a modified design aiming to overcome these limitations. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to conduct a comparative assessment of the safety and efficacy of the W-FLX and 2.5 devices in clinical practice.

METHOD:

The meta-analysis was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA). Studies were located through a search strategy utilizing PubMed, Cochrane, Google scholar and MEDLINE from inception to March 2023, with a primary objective to compare the safety and efficacy of the W-FLX and W 2.5 devices. After applying the selection criteria, five studies were included in this analysis.

RESULTS:

The analysis included five studies comprising 54,727 patients. The W-FLX is associated with an increase in procedural success (OR 7.49 [95% CI 1.98-28.26, P = 0.02; I2 = 0%]), and a significant reduction in mortality (OR 0.52 [95% CI 0.51-0.54, P<0.01; I2 = 0%], major bleeding 0.57 [95% CI 0.51-0.64, P<0.01; I2 = 0%]), device embolism (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.18-0.70, P = 0.02; I2 = 0%]), and pericardial effusion (OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.26-0.41, P<0.01; I2 = 0%]). The rates of DRT and stroke were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION:

Compared to the W 2.5, the W-FLX was associated with a higher procedural success rate and significantly reduced adverse outcomes including mortality, major bleeding, device embolization, and pericardial effusion.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article