Comparative effectiveness of devices for transcatheter closure of atrial septal defects: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Arch Cardiovasc Dis

Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, 10th Floor Eaton North, Room 237, 200, Elizabeth Street, ON M5G 2C4 Toronto, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (IHPME), University of Toronto, Toronto ON M5T 3M6, Canada. Electronic address:

Published: December 2022

AI Article Synopsis

  • - Atrial septal defect (ASD) is a common heart condition treated primarily through transcatheter device closure, and this study aimed to review the effectiveness and safety of different closure devices.
  • - Researchers analyzed twelve studies involving nearly 4,000 patients and found no significant differences in primary outcomes like device embolization across various closure devices, but the HELEX Septal Occluder showed a higher rate of residual shunt compared to the AMPLATZER device.
  • - The study highlighted that most evidence came from low-quality observational studies and that variations in how outcomes were reported indicate the need for future studies to directly compare devices and standardize reporting methods.

Article Abstract

Atrial septal defect is a common congenital heart disease, producing a left-to-right shunt in the atrial septum; the current preferred treatment is transcatheter device closure. The aim is to conduct a systematic review to synthesize information on the comparative effectiveness and safety of atrial septal defect closure devices. The methods used: a comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases was conducted. Studies comparing procedural and follow-up outcomes of atrial septal defect devices were included. Network meta-analyses were conducted to generate direct and indirect evidence for comparative effectiveness and safety outcomes between devices. The results are as follows: Twelve studies met our inclusion criteria and were compared in network meta-analyses. The meta-analyses evaluated contemporary devices: the AMPLATZER Septal Occluder; the GORE CARDIOFORM Septal Occluder; the Figulla Flexible II Occluder; the CeraFlex Septal Occluder; and the HELEX Septal Occluder. These studies represented 3998 patients. The primary safety and efficacy outcomes were device embolization and follow-up residual shunt, respectively. Secondary clinical outcomes included procedural success and major and minor complications. No differences were found between devices in terms of device embolization and secondary clinical outcomes. Follow-up residual shunt was higher with the HELEX Septal Occluder compared with the AMPLATZER Septal Occluder (odds ratio 2.92, 95% confidence interval 1.12-7.61). To conclude: although most outcomes were similar between devices, evidence was largely based on observational low-quality studies. There were inconsistencies in outcome reporting and definitions; this merits future studies, with head-to-head device comparisons and standardization of outcomes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acvd.2022.09.002DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

septal occluder
24
atrial septal
16
comparative effectiveness
12
septal defect
12
septal
10
systematic review
8
effectiveness safety
8
network meta-analyses
8
outcomes devices
8
amplatzer septal
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!