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.
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 thrombosispatients, 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 thrombosispatients, 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 thrombosispatients. IR of follow-up mortality was 0.37 PPY (CI: 0.11-1.21) in thrombosispatients. 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.