Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Aortic stenosis is a common and significant valve condition requiring bioprosthetic heart valves with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being strongly recommended for high-risk patients or patients over 75 years. This meta-analysis aimed to pool existing data on postprocedural clinical as well as echocardiographic outcomes comparing valve-in-valve (ViV)-TAVR to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement to assess the short-term and medium-term outcomes for both treatment methods. A systematic literature search on Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Medline (PubMed interface) electronic databases from inception to August 2023. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. Twenty-four studies (25,216 patients) were pooled with a mean follow-up of 16.4 months. The analysis revealed that ViV-TAVR group showed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (OR 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.58, p <0.00001), new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.67, p = 0.002), major bleeding event (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, p <0.00001) and lower rate of device success (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.53, p = 0.0003). There were no significant differences between either group when assessing 1-year mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction, and effective orifice area. ViV-TAVR cohort showed a significantly increased incidence of paravalvular leaks, aortic regurgitation, and increased mean aortic valve gradient. ViV-TAVR is a viable short-term option for older patients with high co-morbidities and operative risks, reducing perioperative complications and improving 30-day mortality with no significant cardiovascular adverse events. However, both treatment methods present similar results on short-term to medium-term complications assessment.

The efficacy of non-pharmacological and non-pacing therapies in preventing vasovagal syncope: Tilt training, physical counter pressure maneuvers, and yoga - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is a prevalent condition characterized by a sudden drop in blood pressure and heart rate, leading to a brief loss of consciousness and postural control. Recurrent episodes of VVS significantly impact the quality of life and are a common reason for emergency department visits. Non-pharmacological interventions, such as tilt training, physical counter pressure maneuvers, and yoga, have been proposed as potential treatments for VVS. However, their efficacy in preventing VVS remains uncertain. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to March 2023 for randomized controlled trials comparing non-pharmacological interventions with control in preventing VVS recurrence. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate of VVS episodes. RESULTS: A total of 1130 participants from 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall mean effect size for non-pharmacological interventions versus control was 0.245 (95 % CI: 0.128-0.471, p-value <0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that yoga had the largest effect size (odds ratio 0.068, 95 % CI: 0.018-0.250), while tilt training had the lowest effect size (odds ratio 0.402, 95 % CI: 0.171-0.946) compared to control. Physical counter pressure maneuvers demonstrated an odds ratio of 0.294 (95 % CI: 0.165-0.524) compared to control. CONCLUSION: Non-pharmacological interventions show promise in preventing recurrent VVS episodes. Yoga, physical counter pressure maneuvers, and tilt training can be considered as viable treatment options. Further research, including randomized studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches, is needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these interventions for VVS treatment.