Key result
AngioVac achieved successful removal in 74.5% of vegetation and 80.5% of right atrial/caval venous thrombi patients, but efficacy and mortality were significantly worse for pulmonary emboli.
Why the study?
Publications on AngioVac for filtering intravascular thrombi and emboli were limited and underpowered to objectively estimate its safety and efficacy.
Does the AngioVac device safely and effectively remove venous thromboses and endocardial vegetations?
Meta-Analysis (n=182)
Does the AngioVac device safely and effectively remove venous thromboses and endocardial vegetations?
AngioVac is a viable option for extracting right-sided vegetations and right atrial/caval venous thrombi, but has lower success and higher mortality rates when used for pulmonary emboli.
Supports selective AngioVac use for right-sided vegetations/thrombi but cautions against PE; extends observational data, leaves open randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: AngioVac is a new device for filtering intravascular thrombi and emboli. Publications on the device are limited and underpowered to objectively estimate its safety and efficacy. We aimed to overcome this by performing a meta-analysis on the results of AngioVac for treating venous thromboses and endocardial vegetations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to identify all articles reporting cardiac vegetation and/or thrombosis extraction using AngioVac. Endpoints were successful removal, operative mortality, conversion to open surgery, hospital stay, recurrent thromboembolism, and follow-up mortality. Random effect model was used, and pooled event rates (PERs) and incidence rate (IR) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 42 studies with 182 patients (81 vegetation and 101 thrombosis) were included. Overall mean follow-up times were 3.1 and 0.7 years in vegetation and thrombosis patients, respectively. The PERs for successful removal were 74.5 (confidence interval [CI]: 48.2-90.2), 80.5 (CI: 70.0-88.0), and 32.4 (CI: 17.0-52.8) in vegetation, right atrial/caval venous thrombi, and pulmonary emboli (PE) patients, respectively. The PERs for operative mortalities were 14.6 (CI: 7.7-25.8), 14.8 (CI: 8.5-24.5), and 32.3 (CI: 15.1-56.3), respectively. The PERs for conversion to open surgery were 25.0 (CI: 9.3-51.9) and 12.3 (CI: 5.4-25.6) in vegetation and thrombosis patients, respectively. The IR of recurrent thromboembolism was 0.18 per person per year (PPY) (CI: 0.00-14.69) in vegetation and 0.19 PPY (CI: 0.08-0.48) in thrombosis patients. IR of follow-up mortality was 0.37 PPY (CI: 0.11-1.21) in thrombosis patients. CONCLUSIONS: AngioVac is a viable option for extracting right-sided vegetations and right atrial/caval venous thrombi. Rates of successful extraction and mortality are significantly worse for PE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hameed et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in Venous thromboses and endocardial vegetations (n=182). AngioVac was evaluated on Successful removal. AngioVac achieved successful removal in 74.5% of vegetation and 80.5% of right atrial/caval venous thrombi patients, but efficacy and mortality were significantly worse for pulmonary emboli.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: