RESUMO
Background and aim: Current observational studies have compared the effectiveness and safety of edoxaban with other oral anticoagulants in patients with AF, but the results are still disputed. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effect of edoxaban in patients with AF. Methods: We performed systematic research from the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases until November 2022 to obtain relevant observational studies. Adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of the outcomes were collected and pooled by a random-effects model. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022314222). Results: A total of 17 observational studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with vitamin K antagonists, edoxaban was associated with lower risks of stroke or systemic embolism (RR = 0.67, 95 % CI:0.61-0.74), major bleeding (RR = 0.54, 95 % CI:0.44-0.67), and intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 0.51, 95 % CI:0.29-0.90). Compared with dabigatran or rivaroxaban, edoxaban was associated with reduced risks of stroke or systemic embolism (dabigatran [RR = 0.76, 95 % CI:0.66-0.87]; rivaroxaban [RR = 0.81, 95 % CI:0.70-0.94]) and major bleeding (dabigatran [RR = 0.82, 95 % CI:0.69-0.98]; rivaroxaban [RR = 0.81, 95 % CI:0.70-0.94]). Compared with apixaban, edoxaban was associated with a reduced risk of stroke or systemic embolism (RR = 0.87, 95 % CI:0.79-0.97), but had similar risks of bleeding events. Conclusions: Our current evidence suggested that edoxaban might have superior effectiveness and/or safety outcomes than vitamin K antagonists, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban for stroke prevention in patients with AF.
RESUMO
Background: There has been an increasing use of transcatheter tricuspid valve repair (TTVR) recently. However, the periprocedural, short-term, and long-term outcomes of TTVR remain unclear. Objectives: To determine the clinical outcomes in patients with significant tricuspid regurgitation undergoing TTVR. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Source and Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis is reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for clinical trials and observational studies until March 2022. Studies reporting the incidence of clinical outcomes after TTVR were included. The clinical outcomes included periprocedural, short-term (in-hospital or within 30 days), and long-term (>6-month follow-up) outcomes. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality whereas the secondary outcomes included technical success, procedural success, cardiovascular mortality, rehospitalization for heart failure (HHF), major bleeding, and single leaflet device attachment. The incidence of these outcomes across studies was pooled by a random-effects model. Results: A total of 21 studies with 896 patients were included. A total of 729 (81.4%) patients underwent isolated TTVR while only 167 (18.6%) patients underwent combined mitral and tricuspid valve repair. Over 80% of the patients used coaptation devices while approximately 20% used annuloplasty devices. The median follow-up duration was 365 days. Technical and procedural success was high at 93.9% and 82.1%, respectively. The pooled perioperative, short-term, and long-term all-cause mortality for patients undergoing TTVR was 1.0%, 3.3%, and 14.1%, respectively. The long-term cardiovascular mortality rate was 5.3% while the HHF rate was 21.5%. Major bleeding and single leaflet device attachment were two major complications, accounting for 14.3% and 6.4%, respectively, during long-term follow-up. Conclusion: TTVR is associated with high procedural success and low procedural and short-term mortality. However, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and HHF rates remain high during long-term follow-up. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022310020).