Impact of Bempedoic acid on LDL-C reduction and cardiovascular outcomes: A comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The management of LDL-C levels is pivotal in the prevention of cardiovascular morbidity, particularly among patients at high risk or those intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid emerges as a novel agent in this therapeutic arena. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis endeavor to quantify the effectiveness of Bempedoic acid in attenuating LDL-C levels and explore its impact on cardiovascular morbidity, emphasizing its role as an adjunctive or alternative therapy in statin-intolerant or high-risk patients. METHODS: A comprehensive search spanning PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases furnished studies for this review. The inclusion was critiqued based on predefined PICOS parameters, ensuring a robust analytical framework. RESULTS: Bempedoic acid showcased a significant plunge in LDL-C levels (MD -20.69 %, 95 % CI [-23.20, -18.19]), outperforming placebo and ezetimibe monotherapy. The cardioprotective effect was further echoed with a reduced risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the Bempedoic acid cohort (RR 0.86, 95 % CI [0.80, 0.94]). However, a dive into the safety profile revealed no substantial augmentation in adverse events, affirming its tolerance and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Bempedoic acid represents a potent therapeutic ally, affirming its capacity to significantly pare down LDL-C levels and curtail cardiovascular events. Its favorable safety profile underscores its suitability, especially among those with statin intolerance or individuals categorized within the high-risk vascular bracket, necessitating a paradigm shift in current lipid management strategies.

Frequency of Stroke in Intermediate-Risk Patients in the Long-Term Undergoing TAVR vs SAVR: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this research is to compare the long-term incidence of stroke in intermediate-risk patients who have undergone either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedures. The objective is to identify which method exhibits a higher propensity for stroke occurrence, potentially contributing to disability or stroke-related mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the frequency of stroke post-TAVR and SAVR procedures. Data were compiled from a diverse array of research articles, retrieved from the Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases. Conclusions were derived from the comprehensive analysis of forest plots. The analysis indicates no significant reduction in stroke incidence among patients undergoing TAVR compared to those receiving SAVR. This conclusion, underscored by a P-value of 0.76 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.80 to 1.17, arises from a careful review of multiple pertinent studies. The meta-analysis of pooled data does not reveal a significant decrease in stroke frequency associated with TAVR. For intermediate-risk patients, both TAVR and SAVR present similar stroke risks, indicating no procedure is inherently safer. Healthcare providers must take this into account when counseling patients, considering each procedure's benefits and drawbacks. This study focuses specifically on intermediate-risk individuals, so results may not apply universally. Further research across different risk categories is needed. This study emphasizes the need for individualized patient care and informed decision-making in aortic stenosis management.

Efficacy and Complication Profiles of Left Ventricular Assist Devices in Adult Heart Failure Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have marked a milestone in the evolution of treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure. Their popularity and use are steadily rising. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LVADs in improving the survival rate of patients with end-stage heart failure and to identify the complications or adverse events associated with LVAD use. Articles for this systematic review and meta-analysis were sourced from PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases. Only studies that met the predefined PICOS eligibility criteria were analyzed. LVADs significantly improved the 6, 12, 18, and 24-month survival rates in patients with end-stage heart failure compared to no LVAD or other therapies: OR 1.87 (95%CI [1.27-2.76]), OR 2.29 (95%CI [1.61-3.26]), OR 2.07 (95%CI [0.61-6.61]), and OR 1.73 (95%CI [0.88-3.41]) for 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the LVAD group than in the non-LVAD treatments: bleeding OR 12.53 (95%CI [2.60-60.41]), infections OR 4.15 (95%CI [1.19-14.45]), stroke OR 2.58 (95%CI [1.38-4.82]), and arrhythmia OR 2.81 (95%CI [1.64-4.80]). Overall, complications were higher in the LVAD group compared to those without LVAD treatment. Hospital readmissions due to adverse events were significantly more frequent in the LVAD group, OR 2.98 (95%CI [1.38-6.43]). Despite the elevated risk of adverse events associated with LVADs, these devices have demonstrated a notable enhancement in the survival outcomes for patients with end-stage heart failure.