Outcomes with plug-based versus suture-based vascular closure device after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing plug-based (i.e., MANTA) with suture-based (i.e., ProStar XL and ProGlide) vascular closure devices (VCDs) for large-bore access closure after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have yielded mixed results. AIMS: To examine the comparative safety and efficacy of both types of VCDs among TAVR recipients. METHODS: An electronic database search was performed through March 2022 for studies comparing access-site related vascular complications with plug-based versus suture-based VCDs for large-bore access site closure after transfemoral (TF) TAVR. RESULTS: Ten studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 8 observational studies) with 3113 patients (MANTA = 1358, ProGlide/ProStar XL = 1755) were included. There was no difference between plug-based and suture-based VCD in the incidence of access-site major vascular complications (3.1% vs. 3.3%, odds ratio [OR]: 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-1.53). The incidence of VCD failure was lower in plug-based VCD (5.2% vs. 7.1%, OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.91). There was a trend toward a higher incidence of unplanned vascular intervention in plug-based VCD (8.2% vs. 5.9%, OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.97-1.89). Length of stay was shorter with MANTA. Subgroup analyses suggested significant interaction based on study designs such that there was higher incidence of access-site vascular complications and bleeding events with plug-based versus suture-based VCD among RCTs. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing TF-TAVR, large-bore access site closure with plug-based VCD was associated with a similar safety profile as suture-based VCD. However, subgroup analysis showed that plug-based VCD was associated with higher incidence of vascular and bleeding complications in RCTs.

Screening for atrial fibrillation in the elderly: A network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the optimal screening strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF) have yielded conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative efficacy of different AF screening strategies in older adults. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane without language restrictions through January 2022, for RCTs evaluating the outcomes of non-invasive AF screening approaches among adults ≥65 years. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis comparing any AF screening approach versus no screening, and a network meta-analysis comparing systematic screening versus opportunistic screening versus no screening. The primary outcome was new AF detection. RESULTS: The final analysis included 9 RCTs with 85,209 patients. The weighted median follow-up was 12 months. The mean age was 73.4 years and men represented 45.6%. On pairwise meta-analysis, any AF screening (either systematic or opportunistic) was associated with higher AF detection (1.8% vs. 1.3%; risk ratio [RR] 2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-3.65) and initiation of oral anticoagulation (RR 3.26; 95%CI 1.15-9.23), compared with no screening. There was no significant difference between any AF screening versus no screening in all-cause mortality (RR 0.97; 95%CI 0.93-1.01) or acute cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.84-1.01). On network meta-analysis, only systematic screening was associated with higher AF detection (RR 2.73; 95% CI 1.62-4.59) and initiation of oral anticoagulation (RR 5.67; 95% CI 2.68-11.99), but not with the opportunistic screening, compared with no screening. CONCLUSION: Systematic AF screening using non-invasive tools was associated with higher rate of new AF detection and initiation of OAC, but opportunistic screening was not associated with higher detection rates. There were no significant differences between the various AF screening approaches with respect to rates of all-cause mortality or CVA events. However, these analyses are likely underpowered and future RCTs are needed to examine the impact of systematic AF screening on mortality and CVA outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.