Circulating cytokines and risk of developing hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune responses play a significant role in hypertension, though the importance of key inflammatory mediators remains to be defined. We used a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to study the associations between key cytokines and incident hypertension. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), for peer-reviewed studies published up to August 2022. Incident hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg and/or the use of antihypertensive medications. Random effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled hazard ratios (HRs)/risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals by cytokine levels (highest vs. lowest quartile). RESULTS: Only IL-6 and IL-1ß levels have evidence allowing for quantitative evaluation concerning the onset of hypertension. Six studies (10406 participants, 2932 incident cases) examined the association of IL-6 with incident hypertension. The highest versus lowest quartile of circulating IL-6 was associated with a significant HR/RR of hypertension (1.61, 95% CI: 1.00 to 2.60; I2 =87%). After adjusting for potential confounders, including body mass index (BMI), HR/RR was no longer significant (HR/RR: 1.24; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.61; I2 = 56%). About IL-1ß, neither the crude (HR/RR: 1.03; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.76; n = 2) nor multivariate analysis (HR/RR: 0.97, 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.56; n = 2) suggested a significant association with the risk of developing hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of studies suggest that higher IL-6, but not IL-1ß, might be associated with the development of hypertension.

Coronary revascularization for heart failure with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIMS: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common cause of heart failure (HF). Whether coronary revascularization improves outcomes in patients with HF receiving guideline-recommended pharmacological therapy (GRPT) remains uncertain; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched in public databases for RCTs published between 1 January 2001 and 22 November 2022, investigating the effects of coronary revascularization on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic HF due to CAD. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. We included five RCTs that enrolled, altogether, 2842 patients (most aged <65 years; 85% men; 67% with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%). Overall, compared to medical therapy alone, coronary revascularization was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.99; p = 0.0278) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.93; p = 0.0024) but not the composite of hospitalization for HF or all-cause mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74-1.01; p = 0.0728). There were insufficient data to show whether the effects of coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention were similar or differed. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with chronic HF and CAD enrolled in RCTs, the effect of coronary revascularization on all-cause mortality was statistically significant but neither substantial (HR 0.88) nor robust (upper 95% CI close to 1.0). RCTs were not blinded, which may bias reporting of the cause-specific reasons for hospitalization and mortality. Further trials are required to determine which patients with HF and CAD obtain a substantial benefit from coronary revascularization by either coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention.

Implanted haemodynamic telemonitoring devices to guide management of heart failure: a review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Congestion is a key driver of morbidity and mortality in heart failure. Implanted haemodynamic monitoring devices might allow early identification and management of congestion. Here, we provide a state-of-the-art review of implanted haemodynamic monitoring devices for patients with heart failure, including a meta-analysis of randomised trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: We did a systematic search for pre-print and published trials in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the 22nd of September 2021. We included randomised trials that compared management with or without information from implanted haemodynamic monitoring devices for patients with heart failure. Outcomes selected were hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality. Changes in treatment associated with haemodynamic monitoring resulted in only a small reduction in mean pulmonary artery pressure (typically < 1 mmHg as a daily average), which generally remained much greater than 20 mmHg. Haemodynamic monitoring reduced hospitalisations for heart failure (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.58-0.96; p = 0.03) but not mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.26; p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Haemodynamic monitoring for patients with heart failure may reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure but this has not yet translated into a reduction in mortality, perhaps because the duration of trials was too short or the reduction in pulmonary artery pressure was not sufficiently large. The efficacy and safety of aiming for larger reductions in pulmonary artery pressure should be explored. After selecting key words, a systematic review for implanted haemodynamic telemonitoring devices was performed in different dataset and 4 randomised clinical trials were identified and included in this meta-analysis. Three different devices (Chronicle, Chronicle/ICD and CardioMEMS) were tested. All-cause mortality and total heart failure hospitalisations were selected as outcomes. No reduction in all-cause mortality rate was reported but a potential benefit on total heart failure hospitalisation was identified.

Systemic administration of glucocorticoids, cardiovascular complications and mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19, SARS, MERS or influenza: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Administration of glucocorticoids might reduce mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 but have adverse cardiometabolic effects. OBJECTIVES: to investigate the effect of systemic administration of glucocorticoids on cardiovascular complications and all-cause mortality in patients hospitalised with respiratory viral infections, including COVID-19, SARS, MERS and influenza. METHODS: We identified randomised trials published prior to July 28th, 2021. The Mantel-Haenszel random effects method and the Hartung and Knapp adjustment were used to obtain pooled estimates of treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: No randomised trials of glucocorticoids for SARS, MERS or influenza reported relevant outcomes. We included eleven COVID-19 randomised trials (8109 patients). Overall, compared to placebo or standard care, glucocorticoids were not associated with a reduction of in-hospital mortality (p = 0.09). In a pre-specified sub-analysis, in-hospital mortality was reduced by 19% when follow-up was restricted to 14 days from randomisation (5/11 trials, 1329 patients, p = 0.02). With longer follow-up (9/11 trials, 7874 patients), administration of glucocorticoids was associated with a trend to benefit for those requiring mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.57-1.27) but possible harm for those not receiving oxygen at randomisation (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.00 - 1.61), an effect that was significantly different amongst subgroups (p = 0.0359). Glucocorticoids reduced the risk of worsening renal function by 37% (4/11 trials); reported rate of other cardiovascular complications was low. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of systemic glucocorticoids to patients hospitalised with COVID-19 does not lower mortality overall but may reduce it in those requiring respiratory support and increase it in those who do not.