Results:
A total of twenty eligible studies with 3,610 atrial fibrillation
patients (1,564 patients for ICE and 2,046 patients for TEE) were
enrolled. Compared with TEE group, there was no significant difference
in procedural success rate (RR=1.01; 95% CI: 1.00,1.02; P =0.171;
I²=0.00%), total procedural time [weighted mean difference (WMD) =
-5.58; 95%CI: -15.97, 4.81; P =0.292; I²=96.40%], contrast
volume (WMD=-2.61; 95%CI: -12.25, 7.02; P =0.595; I²=84.80%),
and fluoroscopic time (WMD=-0.34; 95%CI: −2.09, 1.41; P =0.705;
I²=82.80%) in the ICE group. Subgroup analysis revealed ICE showed less
contrast use than TEE in the lower proportion paroxysmal atrial
fibrillation group and lower proportion hypertension.