3.2.1 Procedural success rate
All eligible two-arms studies reported the acute procedural success data
and there was no significant difference in procedural success rate
(RR=1.01; 95% CI: 1.00,1.02; P =0.171; I²=0.00%) between two
groups (Figure
2 )[6-15].
Our result was similar to those of several other
meta-analyses[26-28]. Subgroup analysis was
performed with a total of eight subgroup factors for the acute
procedural success of LAAO, and the results are displayed inFigure 3 . There was no significant difference between TEE group
and ICE group in the study design subgroup, follow-up subgroup, ICE
sample size subgroup, male proportion subgroup, age cutoff subgroup,
hypertension proportion subgroup, paroxysmal AF proportion subgroup, and
device types subgroup, suggesting that all subgroup results were
consistent with the pooled result.
We also performed a sensitivity analysis and the results showed no
significant change, ranging from 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99,1.02) to 1.01 (95%
CI:1.00,1.03), in the overall combined proportion, suggesting that there
was no single study in the domination of the combined proportion and
heterogeneity. Moreover, no publication bias was presented in Egger’s
test (P =0.208).