Table5_A comparable efficacy and safety between intracardiac echocardiography and transeso

Twenty clinical studies with 3,610 atrial fibrillation patients (1,564 for ICE and 2,046 for TEE) were analyzed in this meta-analysis comparing procedural efficacy and safety. The dataset, authored by Zhi-Yuan Zhang and last updated in May 2026, synthesizes outcomes like success rates, procedural times, and complication risks from studies published up to December 2022. It is a small document (18.9 KB) summarizing the statistical findings of the review.

Use Cases

• Compare procedural success rates between ICE and TEE guidance based on the synthesized risk ratios.
• Analyze differences in total procedural time and fluoroscopic time between the two imaging methods.
• Investigate subgroup effects on contrast volume use based on patient hypertension status or atrial fibrillation type.
• Assess the safety profile of different guidance methods based on reported procedural and long-term adverse events.

Strengths

• Analysis is based on 20 eligible studies, providing a multi-study evidence base.
• Includes data from 3,610 patients, allowing for statistical comparison between 1,564 ICE and 2,046 TEE cases.
• Clear methodological description of a meta-analysis from four major databases (Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science).

Limitations

• Row count is unknown, which may limit suitability assessment for direct data analysis.
• Column-level documentation is absent; field semantics must be inferred after download.
• The dataset is a summary document (18.9 KB), not the raw patient-level data from the included studies.

Provenance

Source

figshare, authored by Zhi-Yuan Zhang.

Collection Method

Meta-analysis of studies screened from Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science.

Time Range

Studies from database inception to 1 December 2022.

Freshness

Last updated 2026-05-15 11:30:37; freshness should be verified.

Geography

null