Alcohol consumption and heart failure: a dose-response meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (prototype). The objectives are as follows: Main objective To assess the effects of alcohol consumption on the progression to symptomatic (stage C) heart failure in people at risk for heart failure (stage A) or in people with pre-heart failure (stage B). Secondary objectives To assess the effects of alcohol consumption on progression of left ventricular dysfunction in people with stage A or stage B heart failure. We will assess the effect of alcohol consumption on the development of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, mildly reduced ejection fraction, and preserved ejection fraction. We also aim to evaluate the effects of alcohol consumption on the development of symptomatic (stage C) heart failure over the short, medium and long term.

Long-term antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of rheumatic fever recurrence and progression to rheumatic heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatic fever is a non-suppurative, inflammatory sequela of group A Streptococcus pharyngitis that can occur at two to four weeks after infection. Following an episode of rheumatic fever, there is a risk of developing rheumatic heart disease (RHD) later in life that carries significant risk of morbidity and mortality. RHD remains the largest global cause of cardiovascular disease in the young (age < 25 years). The historical literature provides inconclusive evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis is beneficial in reducing the risk of recurrence of rheumatic fever and development of RHD. Antibiotics are thought to work by reducing the carriage of group A Streptococcus and thus reducing the risk of infection. This review was commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) for an upcoming guideline. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the effects of long-term antibiotics versus no antibiotics (control) for secondary prevention of rheumatic fever recurrence and associated sequelae in people with previous rheumatic fever or RHD. 2. To assess the effects of long-term intramuscular penicillin versus long-term oral antibiotics for secondary prevention of rheumatic fever recurrence and associated sequelae in people with previous rheumatic fever or RHD. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, clinical trial registers, ISRCTN.com and reference lists without restrictions on language or date up to 10 March 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials, described in any language, including participants with previous rheumatic fever and/or RHD of any age, based in community or hospital settings. Studies were included if they compared firstly antibiotic prophylaxis with no antibiotic prophylaxis, and, secondly, intramuscular penicillin prophylaxis versus oral antibiotic prophylaxis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standardised methodological, Cochrane-endorsed procedures and performed meta-analyses with risk ratios (RR) and Peto odds ratios (Peto OR). Our primary outcomes were recurrence of rheumatic fever, progression or severity of RHD and cardiac complications. Our secondary outcomes were obstetric complications (maternal and foetal events), mortality, treatment adherence, adverse events and acceptability to participants. We performed comprehensive assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence, applying the GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies (seven RCTs and four quasi-randomised trials) including 3951 participants. The majority of the included studies were conducted in the USA, UK and Canada during the 1950s to 1960s. Most participants with previous rheumatic fever had been diagnosed using the modified Jones criteria (mJC) (four studies), were an average of 12.3 years of age and 50.6% male. We assessed the majority of the included studies to be at high risk of bias, predominantly relating to blinding and attrition bias. Comparison one: antibiotics versus no antibiotics Pooled meta-analysis of six RCTs provides moderate-certainty evidence that antibiotics overall (oral or intramuscular) probably reduce the risk of recurrence of rheumatic fever substantially (0.7% versus 1.7%, respectively) (risk ratio (RR) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.69; 1721 participants). People with early or mild RHD likely have the greatest capacity to benefit from intramuscular antibiotic prophylaxis (8.1%) compared to no antibiotics (0.7%) (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.29; 1 study, 818 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotics may not affect mortality in people with late-stage RHD (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.94; 1 study, 994 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics may not affect the risk of anaphylaxis (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 372; 1 study, 818 participants; low-certainty evidence) or sciatic nerve injury (Peto OR 7.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 372; 1 study, 818 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared with no antibiotics, but probably have an increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions (RR 137, 8.51 to 2210; 2 studies, 894 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and local reactions (RR 29, 1.74 to 485; 1 study, 818 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Comparison two: intramuscular antibiotics versus oral antibiotics Pooled analysis of two RCTs showed that prophylactic intramuscular benzathine benzylpenicillin likely reduces recurrence of rheumatic fever substantially when compared to oral antibiotics (0.1% versus 1%, respectively) (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.26; 395 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, it is unclear whether intramuscular benzyl penicillin is superior to oral antibiotics in reducing the risk of mortality in the context of RHD (Peto OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 1 study, 431 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available on progression of latent RHD or adverse events including anaphylaxis, sciatic nerve injury, delayed hypersensitivity/allergic reactions and local reactions to injection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis likely reduces the risk of recurrence of rheumatic fever compared to no antibiotics, and that intramuscular benzathine benzylpenicillin is probably superior to oral antibiotics (approximately 10 times better). Moreover, intramuscular benzathine benzylpenicillin likely reduces the risk of progression of latent RHD. Evidence is scarce, but antibiotics compared with no antibiotics may not affect the risk of anaphylaxis or sciatic nerve injury, but probably carry an increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions and local reactions. Antibiotics may not affect all-cause mortality in late-stage RHD compared to no antibiotics. There is no evidence available to comment on the effect of intramuscular penicillin over oral antibiotics for progression of latent RHD and adverse events, and little evidence for all-cause mortality. It is important to interpret these findings in the context of major limitations, including the following: the vast majority of the included studies were conducted more than 50 years ago, many before contemporary echocardiographic studies; methodology was often at high risk of bias; outdated treatments were used; only one study was in latent RHD; and there are concerns regarding generalisability to low socioeconomic regions. This underlines the need for ongoing research to understand who benefits most from prophylaxis.

Oral Class I and III antiarrhythmic drugs for maintaining sinus rhythm after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATa) following catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common problem. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been used shortly after ablation in an attempt to maintain sinus rhythm, particularly Class I and III agents. However, it still needs to be established if the use of Class I or III antiarrhythmic medications, or both, reduce the risk of recurrence of ATa. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of oral Class I and III antiarrhythmic drugs versus control (standard medical therapy without Class I or III antiarrhythmics, or placebo) for maintaining sinus rhythm in people undergoing catheter ablation for AF. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and two clinical trial registers without restrictions on language or date to 5 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought published, unpublished, and ongoing parallel-design, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult participants undergoing ablation for AF, with subsequent comparison of Class I and/or III antiarrhythmic use versus control (standard medical therapy or non-Class I and/or III antiarrhythmic use). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and performed meta-analyses with risk ratios (RR) and Peto odds ratios (Peto OR). Our primary outcomes were recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias; adverse events: thromboembolic events; adverse events: myocardial infarction; adverse events: new diagnosis of heart failure; and adverse events: requirement for one or more hospitalisations for atrial tachyarrhythmia. Our secondary outcomes were: all-cause mortality; and requirement for one or more repeat ablations. Where possible, we performed comparison analysis by Class I and/or III antiarrhythmic and divided follow-up periods for our primary outcome. We performed comprehensive assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence applying the GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs involving a total of 3269 participants. Participants were on average 59.3 years old; 71.0% were male; and 72.9% and 27.4% had paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics may reduce recurrence of ATa at 0 to 3 months postablation (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.94, 8 trials, 3046 participants, low-certainty evidence) and likely reduce recurrence at > 3 to 6 months, our a priori primary time point (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93, 5 trials, 2591 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Beyond six months the evidence is very uncertain, and the benefit of antiarrhythmics may not persist (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.55, 4 trials, 2244 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics may not increase the risk of thromboembolic events, myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, or requirement for repeat ablation, at 0 to 3, > 3 to 6, and > 6 months (where data were available; low- to very low-certainty evidence). The use of Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics postablation likely reduces hospitalisations for ATa by approximately 57% at 0 to 3 months (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.64, moderate-certainty evidence). No data were available beyond three months. No data were available on new diagnoses of heart failure. Fewer data were available for Class I and III antiarrhythmics individually. Based on only one and two trials (n = 125 to 309), Class I antiarrhythmics may have little effect on recurrence of ATa at 0 to 3, > 3 to 6, and > 6 months (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.20, 2 trials, 309 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.19, 1 trial, 125 participants; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.32, 1 trial, 125 participants; low-certainty evidence throughout); requirement for hospitalisation for ATa at 0 to 3 months (low-certainty evidence); or requirement for repeat ablation at 0 to 3 months (low-certainty evidence). No data were available for thromboembolic events, myocardial infarction, new diagnosis of heart failure, or all-cause mortality at any time points, or hospitalisation or repeat ablation beyond three months. Class III antiarrhythmics may have little effect on recurrence of ATa at up to 3 months and at > 3 to 6 months (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.16, 4 trials, 599 participants, low-certainty evidence; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.09, 2 trials, 318 participants, low-certainty evidence), and beyond 6 months one trial reported a possible increase in recurrence of ATa (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.94, 1 trial, 112 participants, low-certainty evidence). Class III antiarrhythmics likely reduce hospitalisations for ATa at 0 to 3 months (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.63, moderate-certainty evidence), and may have little effect on all-cause mortality (low- to very low-certainty evidence). The effect of Class III antiarrhythmics on thromboembolic events and requirement for repeat ablation was uncertain (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No data were available for myocardial infarction or new diagnosis of heart failure at any time point, outcomes other than recurrence beyond 6 months, or for hospitalisation and repeat ablation > 3 to 6 months. We assessed the majority of included trials as at low or unclear risk of bias. One trial reported an error in the randomisation process, raising the potential risk of selection bias; most of the included trials were non-blinded; and two trials were at high risk of attrition bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence to suggest that the use of Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics up to 3 months after ablation is associated with a reduced recurrence of ATa 0 to 6 months after ablation, which may not persist beyond 6 months, and an immediate reduction in hospitalisation for ATa 0 to 3 months after ablation. The evidence suggests there is no difference in rates of all-cause mortality, thromboembolic events, or myocardial infarction between Class I and/or III antiarrhythmics versus control.

Local anaesthetic to reduce injection pain in patients who are prescribed intramuscular benzathine penicillin G: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Three to 4-weekly intramuscular injections of benzathine penicillin G (BPG) for a prolonged period (e.g., 10 years, until age 40 years, or lifelong) are recommended for preventing group A streptococcal infections that cause recurrent acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and potential progression to rheumatic heart disease (RHD). The duration of treatment, frequency and local pain associated with BPG injections may lead to reduced compliance. Shorter courses of BPG are recommended for the treatment of syphilis and Streptococcal infections. We aimed to assess the effects of local anaesthesia in reducing injection pain in patients who are being treated with BPG. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and LILACS from database inception up to May 4, 2024, and performed additional searches for grey literature. Randomised controlled trials comparing BPG vs. BPG administered alongside local anaesthetics were included. Randomized controlled trials using BPG, irrespectively of indication, and testing any local anaesthetic agent for pain alleviation were considered eligible. We applied GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. Summary data were extracted from included trials. The primary outcome was injection pain, assessed through mean differences. A random-effects model was utilized to account for study heterogeneity. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022342437. Findings: Database searches identified a total of 3958 records, and 3 additional records were retrieved from grey literature searches. After removal of duplicates, screening of abstracts and full-text review, eight trials were included, combining a total of 489 patients (151 patients with RHD). Immediate pain level, as reported by patients, was of high intensity in most studies. Low intensity pain was still reported at 24 h. Administration of lidocaine mixed with BPG was associated with a significant reduction in immediate post-injection pain (mean difference -3.84, 95% confidence interval -6.19 to -1.48, P = 0.0001; 4 studies; I2 = 98%; GRADE: moderate quality), pain at 5 min (mean difference -2.85, 95% CI confidence interval -3.78 to -1.92, P < 0.0001; 1 study; GRADE: moderate quality), and pain at 20 min (mean difference -1.85, 95% confidence interval -2.61 to -1.09, P < 0.0001; 1 study; GRADE: moderate quality) on a 1 to 10 scale. One study assessed lidocaine cream applied to the skin prior to BPG injection and showed no significant reduction in injection pain (mean difference = -0.54, 95% CI confidence interval -1.17 to 0.09, P = 0.13; 1 study; GRADE: low quality). Mepivacaine mixed with BPG in patients with syphilis showed a significant reduction of immediate post-injection pain (mean difference -2.19, 95% CI confidence interval -2.49 to -1.89, P < 0.0001; 1 study; GRADE: moderate quality). Two studies assessed procaine mixed with BPG and reported: lower immediate pain levels or pain assessed at 1 h (mean difference and 95% CI confidence intervals not provided, P = 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively; 1 study; GRADE: low quality), or less immediate pain and pain at 24 h on the buttock injected with procaine mixed with BPG (mean difference and 95% CI confidence intervals not provided, P < 0.001 for both; 1 study; Grade: low quality). No severe adverse reactions were reported. Interpretation: In patients receiving intramuscular BPG injections, moderate quality quantitative evidence suggests that BPG injections diluted with lidocaine or mepivacaine may improve post-injection pain scores compared to BPG injections diluted with sterile water. Procaine may also have a benefit, but quality of evidence was lower. Most studies included small patient samples and assessed pain levels at different timepoints. Due to insufficient data we were not able to assess the impact of injection volume, and local anaesthetics' dose on pain intensity and duration of pain relief. Funding: WHO.