Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018.
World J Cardiol. Nov 26, 2018; 10(11): 242-249
Published online Nov 26, 2018. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v10.i11.242
Table 3 Complications reported in the individual studies
StudyTotal complications
Type of complications
s-LAAO (%) vs No occlusion (%)s-LAAONo occlusion
Healey et al, 2005[7]8 (52) vs 1 (4)8- intraoperative LAA tears1- LAA tear
Nagpal et al, 2009[8]14 (63.6) vs 11 (52.3)1- septicemia 1- myocardial infarction 2- RBC transfusion 8- temporary pacemaker 2- permanent pacemaker1- RBC transfusion 7- temporary pacemaker 3- permanent pacemaker
Whitlock et al, 2013[9]1 (3.8) vs 2 (25)1- major bleeding2- major bleeding
Zapolonski et al, 2013[4]3 (0.3) vs 5 (0.6)3- myocardial infarction5- myocardial infarction
Lee et al, 2014[5]22 (18.4) vs 22 (18.4)9- requirement of dialysis 4- permanent pacemaker insertion 1- wound revision 8- pericardial effusion1- low cardiac output syndrome 10- dialysis 2- permanent pacemaker insertion 1- mediastinitis 2- wound revision 6- pericardial effusion
Melduni et al, 2017[10]32 (6.9) vs 32 (6.9)14- pneumonia 18- acute renal failure14- pneumonia 18- acute renal failure
Elbadawi et al, 2017[11]17 (3.1) vs 9 (1.6)17- pericardial effusion7- pericardial effusion 2- hemorrhage
Elbadawi et al, 2017[12]1030 (40.8) vs 2903 (23)16- cardiac tamponade 68- pericardial effusion 917- hemorrhage 29- postoperative shock19- cardiac tamponade 151- pericardial effusion 2687- hemorrhage 46- postoperative shock