Comparative effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cell versus bone-marrow mononuclear cell transplantation in heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: There is no clear evidence on the comparative effectiveness of bone-marrow mononuclear cell (BMMNC) vs. mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) stem cell therapy in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). METHODS: Using a systematic approach, eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of stem cell therapy (BMMNCs or MSCs) in patients with HF were retrieved to perform a meta-analysis on clinical outcomes (major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalization for HF, and mortality) and echocardiographic indices (including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)) were performed using the random-effects model. A risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled based on the type of the outcome and subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the potential differences between the types of cells. RESULTS: The analysis included a total of 36 RCTs (1549 HF patients receiving stem cells and 1252 patients in the control group). Transplantation of both types of cells in patients with HF resulted in a significant improvement in LVEF (BMMNCs: MD (95% CI) = 3.05 (1.11; 4.99) and MSCs: MD (95% CI) = 2.82 (1.19; 4.45), between-subgroup p = 0.86). Stem cell therapy did not lead to a significant change in the risk of MACE (MD (95% CI) = 0.83 (0.67; 1.06), BMMNCs: RR (95% CI) = 0.59 (0.31; 1.13) and MSCs: RR (95% CI) = 0.91 (0.70; 1.19), between-subgroup p = 0.12). There was a marginally decreased risk of all-cause death (MD (95% CI) = 0.82 (0.68; 0.99)) and rehospitalization (MD (95% CI) = 0.77 (0.61; 0.98)) with no difference among the cell types (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both types of stem cells are effective in improving LVEF in patients with heart failure without any noticeable difference between the cells. Transplantation of the stem cells could not decrease the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with controls. Future trials should primarily focus on the impact of stem cell transplantation on clinical outcomes of HF patients to verify or refute the findings of this study.

Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With and Without Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized-Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have shown encouraging results regarding cardiovascular outcomes mainly in patients with diabetes. In the present study, we compared the efficacy of GLP-1 RAs in cardiovascular events between patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: After finding eligible studies assessing the impact of GLP-1 RAs on cardiovascular events in patients with and without diabetes using a systematic search, we performed a meta-analysis on randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cardiovascular outcomes between patients taking GLP-1 RAs and placebo stratified by the presence or absence of diabetes. Relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were set as the reporting effect size using the random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 24 RCTs (50 033 with GLP-1 RAs and 44 514 with placebo) were included. Patients on GLP-1 RAs had lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.82-0.93), cardiovascular death (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82-0.94), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.97), stroke (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.92), and hospitalization for heart failure (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.98). Both subgroups were shown to be effective in terms of MACE and mortality. Nondiabetic patients had decreased risk of hospitalization for heart failure and MI, whereas the diabetic subgroup had marginally nonsignificant efficacy. CONCLUSION: The findings of this meta-analysis indicated that patients who are overweight/obese but do not have diabetes have a comparable reduction in the risk of adverse cardiovascular events as those with diabetes. These results need to be confirmed further by large-scale randomized trials in the future.

Simple Memorable Formulas for Screening Hypertension in Children: Based on the New American Academy of Pediatrics Guideline.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension (HTN), also known as high blood pressure (BP), is a major global risk factor for cardiovascular and kidney diseases. Although annual BP screenings for children over three years of age are recommended, underdiagnosis of HTN in children is common. To address this issue, the American Academy of Pediatrics updated its guideline for screening and managing high BP in children in 2017, which can be cumbersome to implement in clinical practice due to the numerous cut-off points and tables. The purpose of our study is to design formulas to detect HTN in children based on the new Clinical Practice Guideline for screening and management of high BP in children and adolescents. METHODS: In this research, we analyzed forty-eight cut-off points using the 90th percentile systolic and diastolic BPs for the fifth percentile height. The final mathematical model consisted of four formulas based on different ages and sex which in turn were rounded by 0.1 and 1.0 for both systolic and diastolic BPs. The formulas were further modified to be lower than the 95th percentile systolic BPs for the fifth percentile of height to minimize false negative results. RESULTS: As evidenced by the tables included in this paper, except for a few exceptions, all rounded systolic and diastolic values for both sexes were equal to or lower than the 90th percentile. In a few cases where the cutoff points calculated by the formula were higher than the ones provided in the 2017 guideline, the differences were less than 2 mmHg. CONCLUSION: In this study to address the complexity of the routine guidelines, we present simplified formulas for screening children aged 1 to 12 years in figures and tables and recommend their use, particularly in office and emergency settings, as an easier-to-implement first step in screening for HTN in children.  DOI: 10.52547/ijkd.7525.

Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Small Aortic Annulus: A Meta-Analysis.

Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is considered a superior option to surgery in patients with small aortic annulus (SAA), it is not clear which type of transcatheter heart valve (THV) has better results in terms of echocardiographic hemodynamics and clinical outcomes. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed comparing balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) and self-expanding valves (SEVs) in patients with SAA who underwent TAVI regarding their impact on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes at short- and midterm follow-up. Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were measured for the outcomes, as appropriate. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the generation type of devices and study designs. A total of 16 articles comprising 1 randomized trial, 3 propensity-matched studies, and 12 observational studies including 4,341 patients (1,967 in BEV and 2,374 in the SEV group) with SAA were included. The implantation of BEVs correlated with a lower indexed effective orifice area (MD -0.19 [-0.25 to -0.13]) and higher transvalvular mean pressure gradient (MD 3.91, 95% CI 2.96 to 4.87). Compared with SEVs, BEVs had increased risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM; RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.45) and severe PPM (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.48 to 3.15). However, BEV had lower moderate and severe paravalvular leak (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.69), risk of stroke (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.76), and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91). The 1-year all-cause mortality (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.49) and cardiac-related mortality (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.81) were not different between the 2 groups. In conclusion, SEVs were associated with larger indexed effective orifice area and lower PPM but higher paravalvular leak. In contrast, patients with SEVs were more likely to develop stroke and required permanent pacemaker implantation. Both THVs did not show difference in terms of early and midterm all-cause and cardiac mortality. Because both types of THVs show similar results regarding mortality data, hemodynamics should be among the factors considered in decision making for patients with SAA who underwent TAVI.