Comparison between Amplatzer and Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Introduction: The Amplatzer and Watchman left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) devices are the two most frequently used devices for LAAC devices worldwide. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two devices. Methods: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies up to February 6, 2022 that compared the safety and efficacy of the Amplatzer and Watchman devices. Results: Fifteen studies including 2,150 patients in randomized controlled trials and 2,526 patients in observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. Amplatzer device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.45–2.74, p < 0.0001) and device embolization (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.09–3.64, p = 0.03). However, Amplatzer device had lower rates of total peridevice leak (PDL) (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.27–0.83, p = 0.009), significant PDL (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12–0.57, p = 0.0007) and device-related thrombus (DRT) (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48–0.95, p = 0.02). No statistical differences were observed between the two devices in other safety and efficacy endpoints, such as pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, air embolism, vascular complications, ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and bleeding. Conclusions: Amplatzer LAAC device was associated with higher rates of major procedure-related complications, especially in device embolization. Watchman LAAC device was associated with higher rates of PDL and DRT. There were no significant differences between two devices in ischemic stroke/TIA, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and bleeding.