RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is correlated with a poor biventricular pacing and inadequate response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Biventricular pacing improvement can be achieved by conducting the atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA). We aimed to investigate the benefit of AVJA for permanent AF and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients receiving CRT. METHODS: In August 2020, a systematic review and meta-analysis study comparing CRT plus AVJA versus CRT for permanent AF and HFrEF patients was conducted. Relevant articles were identified through the electronic scientific database such as ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Cochrane. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and pooled mean difference (MD) were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 3199 patients from 14 cohort studies were involved in this study. Additional AVJA reduced cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61 to 0.93, P < 0.01) in permanent AF and HFrEF patients receiving CRT. Biventricular pacing rate was higher in CRT plus AVJA group (MD = 8.65%, 95% CI = 5.62 to 11.67, P < 0.01) than in CRT alone group. The reverse remodeling characterized by the reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was greater in the CRT plus AVJA group (MD = -2.11 mm, 95% CI = -3.79 to -0.42, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In permanent AF and HFrEF patients receiving CRT, AVJA effectively increased the biventricular pacing rate. Adequate biventricular pacing rate provided a better response to the CRT marked by the greater ventricular reverse remodeling and survival from cardiovascular mortality.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: A beta-blocker should be initiated in patients with stable acute heart failure (AHF). Beta-blocker titration should be conducted after a two-week interval. The benefits of aggressive beta-blocker titration are still unclear. This study aimed to investigate the aggressive beta-blocker titration outcomes in stabilized AHF patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analysed clinical data from the heart failure (HF) registry. AHF Patients with LVEF <40% were divided into aggressive and guideline-directed beta-blocker titration groups. The composite of worsening HF, ventricular arrhythmia, and mortality during hospitalization were defined as the primary outcomes. We considered secondary outcomes as the components of primary outcomes and also the outcomes during a 90-day follow-up after hospital discharge, including HF readmission and mortality. RESULTS: The primary outcomes between both groups were not significantly different (12.3% vs 24.4%; relative risk [RR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-1.01; p = 0.055). However, the aggressive beta-blocker titration reduced ventricular arrhythmia events (5.7% vs 17.8%; RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.12-0.84; p = 0.016). The 90-day HF readmission rate (2.6% vs 7.5%; RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.07-1.66; p = 0.179) and mortality rate (4.3% vs 5%; RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.18-4.31; p = 1.000) between both groups were not found to be significantly different. CONCLUSION: Compared to the guideline-directed beta-blocker titration, the aggressive beta-blocker titration was safe in low LVEF AHF patients who have been previously stabilized. Additionally, aggressive beta-blocker titration effectively reduced ventricular arrhythmia events.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) has a complex pathophysiological process. The standard catheter ablation approach is pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). The additional value of complex fractionated electrogram (CFAE) ablation is still unclear. We aimed to investigate the additional value of CFAE ablation for non-paroxysmal AF. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies up to May 2020. Articles comparing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus CFAE ablation and PVI alone for AF were obtained from the electronic scientific databases. The pooled mean difference (MD) and pooled risk ratio (RR) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 1034 patients were involved. Following a single catheter ablation procedure, the presence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) with or without the use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) between both groups were not significantly different (RR = 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.97-1.24; p = 0.13). Similar results were also obtained for the presence of any ATA without the use of AADs (RR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.96-1.22; p = 0.2). The additional CFAE ablation took longer procedure times (MD = 46.95 min; 95% CI = 38.27-55.63; p = < 0.01) and fluoroscopy times (MD = 11.69 min; 95% CI = 8.54-14.83; p = < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Additional CFAE ablation failed to improve the outcomes of non-paroxysmal AF patients. It also requires a longer duration of procedure times and fluoroscopy times.