Abstract Body (Do not enter title and authors here): Background: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is essential for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation where anticoagulation is contraindicated. Intracardiac Echocardiography (ICE) has been proven effective and safe for LAAO since 2011, yet adoption rates remain low, with only 2.2% of LAAOs guided by ICE between 2015 and 2019. Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE), the current gold standard, and ICE differ significantly in operational dynamics and patient impacts, influencing procedural outcomes.
Objective: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ICE and TEE in facilitating LAAO, offering insights into their comparative clinical use.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, OVID, and Scopus through December 2023, comparing ICE and TEE in LAAO. Inclusion criteria centered on studies reporting technical success, with secondary outcomes including length of stay (LOS), mortality, and adverse outcomes such as stroke, transient ischemic attacks (TIA), pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, device thrombosis, device embolization, and peri-device leaks. Data synthesis employed statistical methods utilizing R Studio.
Results: Fourteen studies involving 4184 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in technical success (OR 1.34, 95% CI: [0.76, 2.36]), LOS (OR 1.66, 95% CI: [0.80, 3.42]), or mortality (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: [0.50, 2.00]) between ICE and TEE. Similarly, non-significant differences were noted in stroke, TIA, pericardial effusion, and device leaks, with minimal heterogeneity (I² = 0%).
Conclusion: ICE and TEE provide comparable clinical outcomes in LAAO, with no significant efficacy or safety differences. These results suggest that the choice between ICE and TEE should be based on procedural convenience, patient anatomy, and resource availability, rather than clinical outcomes alone. The equivalence in performance between these modalities allows for flexibility in clinical practice, ensuring that patient care can be customized to individual needs without compromising safety or effectiveness.