Meta-Analysis Comparing WatchmanTM and Amplatzer Devices for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

Indranill Basu Ray, Dibbendhu Khanra, Sumit Shah, Sudhanva Char, Xiaoming Jia, Wilson Lam, Nilesh Mathuria, Mehdi Razavi, Bhavna Jain, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, Saibal Kar, Andrea Natale, Adedayo Adeboye, John Lynn Jefferies, Sripal Bangalore, Samuel Asirvatham, Mohammad Saeed

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

20 Scopus citations


Background: For patients with atrial fibrillation who are at high risk for bleeding or who cannot tolerate oral anticoagulation, left atrial appendage (LAA) closure represents an alternative therapy for reducing risk for thromboembolic events. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of the Amplatzer and WatchmanTM LAA closure devices. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed of studies comparing the safety and efficacy outcomes of the two devices. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to appraise study quality. Results: Six studies encompassing 614 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall event rates were low for both devices. No significant differences between the devices were found in safety outcomes (i.e., pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, device embolization, air embolism, and vascular complications) or in the rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, or device-related thrombosis. The total bleeding rate was significantly lower in the WatchmanTM group (Log OR = −0.90; 95% CI = −1.76 to −0.04; p = 0.04), yet no significant differences was found when the bleeding rate was categorized into major and minor bleeding. Total peridevice leakage rate and insignificant peridevice leakage rate were significantly higher in the WatchmanTM group (Log OR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.87; p < 0.01 and Log OR = 1.11; 95% CI = 0.50 to 1.72; p < 0.01, respectively). However, significant peridevice leakages were similar in both the devices. Conclusions: The LAA closure devices had low complication rates and low event rates. Efficacy and safety were similar between the systems, except for a higher percentage of insignificant peridevice leakages in the WatchmanTM group. A randomized controlled trial comparing both devices is underway, which may provide more insight on the safety and efficacy outcomes comparison of the devices.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number89
JournalFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine
StatePublished - Jun 22 2020


  • Amplatzer Amulet
  • Amplatzer Cardiac Plug
  • Watchman device
  • atrial fibrillation
  • left atrial appendage closure
  • stroke

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Meta-Analysis Comparing WatchmanTM and Amplatzer Devices for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this