RESUMEN
Pacemaker therapy is the cornerstone in treatment of bradycardia and conduction disorders. Several diagnostic tools are utilized to diagnose and guide the physicians for appropriate management and accordingly proper utilization of pacemaker therapy. The current article is discussing the different diagnostics used for appropriate evaluation and diagnosis of bradyarrhythmias and the suggested solutions to improve bradycardia diagnosis and pacemaker therapy utilization in underpenetrated areas.
RESUMEN
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after AF ablation is not uncommon. High sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) is a widely used inflammatory marker with a potential property to predict AF recurrence. We conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis to find an association between hs-CRP levels and AF recurrence after ablation. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Wiley-Cochrane Library from inception to January 2022 for studies that reported hs-CRP levels in patients who underwent AF ablation. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to evaluate the difference between hs-CRP levels in post-ablation AF recurrent and non-recurrent group. Also, the difference between hs-CRP levels in pre- and post-ablation was determined. Results: We identified 10 studies, and a total of 789 patients were included (299 recurrent vs. 490 non-recurrent patients). The mean age was 57.7 years (76.4% male). There was no difference in baseline hs-CRP levels between AF recurrent and non-recurrent group (WMD = 0.05, 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.15, p = 0.045). However, higher hs-CRP levels post-ablation were found in AF recurrent group (WMD = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.03-0.15, p < 0.001). Conclusion: There is no significant difference in baseline hs-CRP levels between AF recurrent and non-recurrent patients after AF ablation. However, higher post-ablation hs-CRP level was found in AF recurrent group. High Sensitivity C reactive protein may play a role as a predictor of AF recurrence.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Several studies have shown an inconsistent relationship between postimplantation pocket hematoma and cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effect of postimplantation hematoma and the risk of CIED infection. METHODS: We searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to March 2020. Included studies were cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and randomized controlled trials that reported incidence of postimplantation pocket hematoma and CIED infection during the follow-up period. CIED infection was defined as either a device-related local or systemic infection. Data from each study were combined using the random effects, generic inverse variance method of Der Simonian and Laird to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in final analysis, involving a total of 28 319 participants. In random-effect model, we found that postimplantation pocket hematoma significantly increases the risk of overall CIED infection (OR = 6.30, 95% CI: 3.87-10.24, I 2 = 49.3%). There was no publication bias observed in the funnel plot as well as no small-study effect observed in Egger's test. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that postimplantation pocket hematoma significantly increases the risk of CIED infection. Precaution should be taken during device implantation to reduce postimplantation hematoma and subsequent CIED infection.