Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyMeta-analysis

Intracardiac Versus Transesophageal Echocardiography for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion

JACC AdvPublished

  • meta-analysis
  • random-effects model
  • 27 observational studies
  • subgroup analysis for unadjusted and adjusted data

Authors' conclusion

ICE and TEE demonstrated comparable procedural success. However, ICE was associated with shorter procedural duration at the expense of a higher incidence of intervention-requiring pericardial effusion and residual iatrogenic atrial septal defect. (Intracardiac versus Transesophageal Echocardiography for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis Stratified by Adjusted and Unadjusted Subgroups; CRD420251243170).

Study context

Population
Patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion guided by intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) or transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)observational studies, of which 9 studies reported adjusted summary estimates
Participants
27 patients
Comparison
ICE vs TEE during left atrial appendage occlusion

Pooled result

As reported in the abstract

Procedural success
ICE vs TEEOdds ratio (95% CI)
unadjusted; I2 = 0%
1.16(0.92–1.45)
adjusted; I2 = NA
1.40(0.99–1.98)

Further pooled results

OutcomeMD (minutes) (95% CI)
Procedure duration — ICE vs TEE · adjusted; shorter with ICE; I2 = 0%−20.76 (−26.99 to −14.53)
OutcomeMD (95% CI)
Procedure duration — ICE vs TEE · unadjusted; no difference; I2 = 95%−0.13 (−5.40 to 5.14)

Safety

OutcomeOR (95% CI)
In-hospital pericardial effusion requiring intervention — ICE vs TEE · unadjusted; higher with ICE; I2 = 9%1.52 (1.13–2.04)
In-hospital pericardial effusion requiring intervention — ICE vs TEE · adjusted; higher with ICE; I2 = 8%1.74 (1.15–2.64)
Residual iatrogenic atrial septal defect · <4 months · unadjusted; higher with ICE; I2 = 0%1.61 (1.20–2.16)

Original publication

Intracardiac Versus Transesophageal Echocardiography for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion. JACC Adv. Published 20 May 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2026.102815

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it