Safety and efficacy of high power shorter duration ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is effective but hampered by pulmonary veins reconnection because of insufficient lesions. High power shorter duration ablation (HPSD) was seen to increase efficacy and safety. This analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits of HPSD in patients with AF. METHODS: The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing HPSD and Low power longer duration (LPLD) ablation. RESULTS: A total of seven trials with 2023 patients were included in the analysis. Pooled analyses demonstrated that HPSD showed a benefit of first-pass pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) [risk ratio (RR): 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18-1.37, P < .001]. HPSD could reduce recurrence of atrial arrhythmias (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.50-0.98, P = .04). Additionally, HPSD was more beneficial in terms of procedural time [Weighted Mean Difference, (WMD): -44.62; 95% CI, -63.00 to -26.23, P < .001], ablation time (WMD: -21.25; 95% CI: -25.36 to -17.13, P < .001), and fluoroscopy time (WMD: -4.13; 95% CI: -7.52 to -0.74, P < .001). Moreover, major complications and esophageal thermal injury (ETI) were similar between two groups (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.44-1.30, P = .31) and (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.17-2.39, P = .51). CONCLUSION: HPSD was safe and efficient for treating AF with clear advantages of procedural features, it also showed benefits of higher first-pass PVI and reducing recurrence of atrial arrhythmias compared with the LPLD. Moreover, major complications and ETI were similar between two groups.

Value of microalbuminuria in the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVE: Elevated microalbuminuria (MAU) levels have been demonstrated in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, nothing is known about MAU levels in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Therefore, the aim of our study was to explore the relationship between MAU levels and HFpEF. METHODS: The MAU and N­terminal B­type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations were examined in 260 participants, including 160 patients with HFpEF and 100 control subjects without HF. Echocardiography was performed on all study participants. The patients with HFpEF were divided into class II, III, or IV according to the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. RESULTS: The MAU levels in the HFpEF group were significantly higher than those in the non-HF group (58.97 ± 89.84 vs. 19.56 ± 29.34, p > 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the levels of MAU among NYHA class II-IV patients in the HFpEF group (p > 0.05). In Pearson linear correlation analysis, MAU levels in the HFpEF group were positively correlated with left atrial diameter (LAD; r = 0.344, p < 0.05), but negatively correlated with hemoglobin (r = - 0.233, p < 0.05). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of MAU for the diagnosis of HFpEF was 0.83 (95% CI [0.76, 0.90], p < 0.05), the sensitivity was 72.50%, and the specificity was 82.0%. The AUC of NT-proBNP was 0.88 (95% CI [0.83, 0.94], p < 0.05), the sensitivity was 82%, and the specificity was 73.8%. The AUC of MAU combined with NT-proBNP was 0.91 (95% CI [0.86, 0.96], p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results show that MAU can be used as a biomarker for the diagnosis of HFpEF. Combined detection of MAU with NT-proBNP has clinical value in improving the accuracy of diagnosis of HFpEF. However, there is no significant correlation between MAU levels and the severity of HFpEF.

Integrative genomic analysis identified common regulatory networks underlying the correlation between coronary artery disease and plasma lipid levels.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) and plasma lipid levels are highly correlated, indicating the presence of common pathways between them. Nevertheless, the molecular pathways underlying the pathogenic comorbidities for both traits remain poorly studied. We sought to identify common pathways and key driver genes by performing a comprehensive integrative analysis based on multi-omic datasets. METHODS: By performing a pathway-based analysis of GWAS summary data, we identified that lipoprotein metabolism process-related pathways were significantly associated with CAD risk. Based on LD score regression analysis of CAD-related SNPs, significant heritability enrichments were observed in the cardiovascular and digestive system, as well as in liver and gastrointestinal tissues, which are the main regulators for lipid level. RESULTS: We found there existed significant genetic correlation between CAD and other lipid metabolism related traits (the smallest P value < 1 × 10- 16). A total of 13 genes (e.g., LPA, APOC1, APOE and SLC22A3) was found to be overlapped between CAD and plasma lipid levels. By using the data-driven approach that integrated transcriptome information, we discovered co-expression modules associated prominently with both CAD and plasma lipids. With the detailed topology information on gene-gene regulatory relationship, we illustrated that the identified hub genes played important roles in the pathogenesis of CAD and plasma lipid turbulence. CONCLUSION: Together, we identified the shared molecular mechanisms underlying the correlation between CAD and plasma lipid levels.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation (CA) is an effective treatment for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The potential of CA to benefit AF patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain. HYPOTHESIS: CA may be safe and effective for patients with HFpEF. METHODS: The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies evaluating CA for AF patients with HFpEF. RESULTS: A total of seven trials with 1696 patients were included. Pooled analyses demonstrated similar procedure and fluoroscopy time regarding the use of CA for patients with HFpEF and without HF (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.01-0.81, p = .05 and [WMD: 0.05; 95% CI: -0.18-0.28, p = .68]). Moreover, CA was effective in maintaining sinus rhythm (SR) in patients with HFpEF and noninferior for patients without HF [risk ratio (RR): 0.92; 95% CI: 0.76-1.10, p = .34). Additionally, CA tended to significantly maintain SR (RR: 4.73; 95% CI: 1.86-12.03, p = .001) and reduce rehospitalization for HF compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.19-0.71, p = .003). However, no significant differences were found between two groups regarding the mortality rate (p = .59). CONCLUSION: CA is a potential treatment strategy for patients with HFpEF and demonstrates equivalent efficacy to that of patients without HF. Moreover, the benefits of CA in maintaining SR and reducing rehospitalization of HF patients were significantly better than those of medical therapy. Additional randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm our results.

Comparison of high-power short-duration and low-power long-duration radiofrequency ablation for treating atrial fibrillation: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: High power shorter duration (HPSD) ablation seen to increase efficacy and safety treating of atrial fibrillation (AF); however, comparative data between HPSD and low power longer duration (LPLD) ablation are limited. HYPOTHESIS: We thought that HPSD might bring more clinical benefits. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical benefits of HPSD in patients with AF. METHODS: The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing HPSD and LPLD ablation. RESULTS: Ten trials with 2467 patients were included in the analysis. Pooled analyses demonstrated that HPSD showed a benefit of first-pass pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) (risk ratio [RR]: 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-1.31, P < .001) and recurrence of atrial arrhythmias (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.91, P = .005). Additionally, HPSD could reduce procedural time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -42.93; 95% CI, -58.10 to -27.75, P < .001), ablation time (WMD: -21.01; 95% CI: -24.55 to -17.47, P < .001), and fluoroscopy time (WMD: -4.11; 95% CI: -6.78 to -1.45, P < .001). Moreover, major complications and esophageal thermal injury (ETI) were similar between two groups (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.44-1.30, P = .31) and (RR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.21-1.51, P = .26). CONCLUSIONS: HPSD was safe and efficient for treating AF. Compared with LPLD, HPSD was associated with advantages of procedural features, higher first-pass PVI and reducing recurrence of atrial arrhythmias. Moreover, major complications and ETI were similar between two groups.

Safety and efficacy of the ThermoCool SmartTouch SurroundFlow catheter for atrial fibrillation ablation: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The ThermoCool Smarttouch Surroundflow catheter (STSFc) is an advanced catheter, which integrating contact force sensing and surroundflow technology. However, comparative data between STSFc and contact force sensing catheter (Thermocool SmartTouch catheter [STc]) are limited. HYPOTHESIS: We thought that STSFc might bring more clinical benefits. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficiency between the STSFc and the STc for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing STSFc and STc. RESULTS: Four trials involving 727 patients were included in the study. Pool-analyses demonstrated that, as compared STc ablation, STSFc ablation was more beneficial in terms of procedural times (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.37 to -0.07, P = .005) and irrigation fluid volume (SMD: -1.94; 95% CI, -2.65 to -1.22, P < .0001). There was no significant difference between STSFc and STc (risk ratio [RR]: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.21, P = .79) for free from AF. Evidence of complications were low and similar for both groups (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.19-3.55, P = .80). Additionally, patients administered STSFc ablation tended to have shorter fluoroscopic times (SMD: -0.20; 95% CI, -0.63-0.23, P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: STSFc ablation was associated with reducing procedural times and irrigation fluid volume. Further, STSFc ablation tended to shorten fluoroscopic times. Therefore, STSFc ablation would be a better choice for AF patients especially in patients with heart failure.

Costs and long-term outcomes following pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation in elderly patients using second-generation cryoballoon vs. open-irrigated radiofrequency in China.

PURPOSE: Limited comparative data are available regarding catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) using second-generation cryoballoon (CB-2) vs. radiofrequency (RF) ablation in elderly patients (> 75 years old). The present study aimed to compare the costs and clinical outcomes in elderly patients using these two strategies. METHODS: Elderly patients with symptomatic drug-refractory paroxysmal/short-lasting persistent AF were included in the study. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) was performed in all patients. RESULTS: A total of 324 elderly patients were included (RF,176; CB-2,148) from September 2016 to April 2019. The CB-2 was associated with shorter procedure time and left atrial dwell time (112.9 ± 11.1 vs. 135.1 ± 9.9 min, P < 0.001; 53.7 ± 8.9 vs. 65.1.9 ± 9.0 min, P < 0.001) but marked fluoroscopy utilization (22.1 ± 3.3 vs. 18.5 ± 3.6 min, P < 0.001). Complications occurred in 3.3% (CB-2) and 6.2% (RF) of patients with no significant different (p = 0.307). The length of stay after ablation was shorter, but the costs were higher in the CB-2 group (1.94 vs. 2.53 days, P < 0.001 and 91,132.6 ± 3723.5 vs. 81,149.4 ± 6824.1 CNY, P < 0.001) compared to the RF group. Additionally, the rate of early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia (ERAA) was lower in the CB-2 group (14.2 vs. 23.3%, P = 0.047), but the long-term success rate was similar between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: CB-2 is associated with shorter procedure time, left atrial dwell time, and length of stay after ablation, as well as lower ERAA, but its costs and fluoroscopy time are greater than the RF group. Moreover, the rate of complications and long-term success is similar between the two groups.

Cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta­analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes of catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) remain discouraging. AIM: This meta­analysis aimed to compare cryoballoon ablation (CBA) with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for persistent AF. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was performed for studies comparing the outcomes between CBA and RFA. Seven trials including 934 patients were analyzed. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups in terms of freedom from atrial arrhythmia (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.15; P = 0.52; I2 = 0%), procedural complications (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.52-1.59; P = 0.74; I2 = 0%), atrial fibrillation or atrial tachycardia relapse during the blanking period (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.50-1.06; P = 0.1; I2 = 9%), repeat ablation (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.45-1.21; P = 0.23; I2 = 62%), and vascular complications (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.42-2.27; P = 0.97; I2 = 0%). Cryoballoon ablation increased the incidence of conversion to sinus rhythm during ablation (RR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.01-2.83; P = 0.046; I2 = 0%) and phrenic nerve palsy (PNP; RR, 3.05; 95% CI, 0.95-9.8; P = 0.06; I2 = 0%), while RFA increased the risk of cardiac tamponade (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-1.25; P = 0.09; I2 = 0%). Subanalyses revealed a lower incidence of recurrent atrial arrhythmia and repeat ablation during CBA without touch­up RFA in pulmonary vein isolation. CONCLUSIONS: CBA provides an alternative technique for persistent AF ablation. It might reduce the risk of repeat ablation and cardiac tamponade but increase the risk of PNP.

Comparing between second-generation cryoballoon vs open-irrigated radiofrequency ablation in elderly patients: Acute and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Limited comparative data are available regarding catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) using second-generation cryoballoon (CB-2) vs radiofrequency (RF) ablation in elderly patients (>75-year-old). HYPOTHESIS: CB-2 ablation may demonstrate different outcomes compared with that using RF ablation for elderly patients with AF. METHOD: Elderly patients with symptomatic drug-refractory AF were included in the study. Pulmonary vein isolation was performed in all patients. RESULTS: A total of 324 elderly patients were included (RF: 176, CB-2:148) from September 2016 to April 2019. The CB-2 was associated with shorter procedure time and left atrial dwell time (112.9 ± 11.1 vs 135.1 ± 9.9 minutes, P < .001; 53.7 ± 8.9 vs 65.1.9 ± 9.0 minutes, P < .001), but marked fluoroscopy utilization (22.1 ± 3.3 vs 18.5 ± 3.6 minutes, P < .001). Complications occurred in 3.3% (CB-2) and 6.2% (RF) of patients with no significant different (P = .307). The length of stay after ablation was shorter, but the costs were higher in the CB-2 group (1.94 vs 2.53 days, P < .001 and 91 132.6 ± 3723.5 vs 81 149.4 ± 6824.1 CNY, P < .001) compared to the RF group. Additionally, the rate of early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was lower in the CB-2 group (14.2 vs 23.3%, P = .047), but the long-term success rate was similar between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: CB-2 is associated with shorter procedure time, left atrial dwell time, and length of stay after ablation, but its costs and fluoroscopy time are greater than the RF group. Moreover, the rate of complications and long-term success are similar between the two groups.

Efficacy, safety, and in-hospital outcomes of subcutaneous versus transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Lead-related complication is an important drawback of trans-venous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (TV-ICD). The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) was developed to overcome ICD lead associated complications; however, whether the S-ICD confers enhanced clinical benefits compared with TV-ICD remains unclear. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess TV-ICD and S-ICD for safety, efficacy, and in-hospital outcomes in the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients not requiring pacing. METHODS: The Medline, PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing TV-ICD and S-ICD. RESULTS: A total of 9 eligible studies, including 5 propensity-matched case-control, 3 retrospective, and 1 cross-sectional studies were identified, assessing 7361 patients in all. Pool analyses demonstrated that SICD were associated with lower lead-related complication rates [odds ratio (OR) = 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.33; I = 0%], and S-ICD was more beneficial in terms of reducing ICD shocks [OR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.72, I = 4%]. In addition, the patients administered S-ICD tend to have shorter length of hospital stay after implantation (SMD = -0.06; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.00, I = 0%) and reduce total complication rates (OR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.50-1.03; I = 18%), non-decreased quality of life (QoL). Moreover, both devices appeared to perform equally well with respect to infection rate and death. CONCLUSIONS: Available overall data suggested that S-ICD is associated with reducing lead-related complications, ICD shocks. In addition, S-ICD has tendency to shorten hospitalization and reduce total complications, although the difference is no significant. Equivalent death rate, infection, and QoL were found between 2 groups. Therefore, S-ICD could be considered an alternative approach to TV-ICD in appropriate patients for SCD prevention.