A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of Mavacamten therapy in international cohort of 524 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common heritable myocardial disorder worldwide. Current pharmacological treatment options are limited. Mavacamten, a first-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, targets the main underlying pathology of HCM. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Mavacamten in patients with HCM. PRISMA flow chart was utilized using PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for all up-to-date studies using pre-defined keywords. Pre-specified efficacy outcomes comprised several parameters, including an improvement in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and ≥ 1 NYHA class, the need for septal reduction therapy (SRT), change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), changes in biochemical markers and LVEF, along with peak left ventricular outflow tract gradient at rest and after Valsalva maneuver. Safety outcomes included morbidity and serious adverse events. This systematic review included five studies, four RCTs and one non-randomized control trial comprised a total of 524 (Mavacamten [273, 54.3%] vs placebo [230, 45.7%] adult (≥ 18 years) patients with a mean age of 56 years. The study. comprised patients with Caucasian and Chinese ethnicity and patients with obstructive (oHCM) and non-obstructive (nHCM) HCM. Most baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Mavacamten showed a statistically significant increase in the frequency of the primary composite endpoint (RR = 1.92, 95% CI [1.28, 2.88]), ≥ 1 NYHA class improvement (RR = 2.10, 95% CI [1.66, 2.67]), a significant decrease in LVEF, peak left ventricular outflow tract gradient at rest and after Valsalva maneuver. Mavacamten also showed a significant reduction in SRT rates (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.21, 0.40], p < 0.00001), KCCQ clinical summary scores (MD = 8.08, 95% CI [4.80, 11.37], P < 0.00001) troponin levels and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. However, there was no statistically significant difference between Mavacamten and placebo regarding the change from baseline peak oxygen consumption. Mavacamten use resulted in a small increase in adverse events but no statistically significant increment in serious adverse events. Our study showed that Mavacamten is a safe and effective treatment option for Caucasian and Chinese patients with HCM on the short-term. Further research is needed to explore the long-term safety and efficacy of Mavacamten with HCM. In addition, adequately powered studies including patients with nHCM is needed to ascertain befits of Mavacamten in those patients.

To repair or to replace in mitral valve infective endocarditis? an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Valve infective endocarditis (IE) is a potentially life-threatening condition that affects patients' livelihoods. Current surgical options in mitral valve IE include mitral valve repair (MVr) or replacement (MVR). While each procedure boasts its merits, doubt remains as to which type of surgery is superior. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane literature databases for studies comparing MVR and MVr in mitral valve IE. Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational studies that compare MVR vs. MVr in mitral valve IE were eligible. Our dichotomous outcomes were extracted in the form of event and total, and risk and hazard ratio (RR)(HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and were pooled and calculated using RevMan 5.0. RESULTS: Our study included 23 studies with a total population of 11,802 patients. Compared to MVR, MVr had statistically significant lower risks of both early mortality with RR [0.44; 95% CI, 0.38-0.51; p < 0.001] and long-term follow-up mortality with HR [0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85; p = 0.0004]. Moreover, MVr was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of IE recurrence with RR [0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.58; p < 0.001]; however, no statistically significant differences between both groups in terms of re-operations with RR [0.83; 95% CI, 0.41-1.67; p = 0.60]. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that MVr was superior in terms of in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and risk of recurrence without significance in valve reoperation. Therefore, MVr is appropriate as a primary treatment choice and should be considered whenever possible in most IE patients.

Minimally invasive surgery versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has recently been approved for use in patients who are at intermediate and low surgical risk. Moreover, recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (miAVR). The present meta-analysis compared the outcomes of TAVR and miAVR in the management of aortic stenosis (AS). We conducted an electronic search across six databases from 2002 (TAVR inception) to December 2019. Data from relevant studies regarding the clinical and length of hospitalisation outcomes were extracted and analysed using R software. We identified a total of 11 cohort studies, of which seven were matched/propensity matched. Our analysis demonstrated higher rates of midterm mortality (≥1 year) with TAVR (risk ratio (RR): 1.93, 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.22), but no significant differences with respect to 1 month mortality (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.81), stroke (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.40 to 2.87) and bleeding (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 0.56 to 3.75) rates. Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to experience paravalvular leakage (RR: 14.89, 95% CI: 6.89 to 32.16), yet less likely to suffer acute kidney injury (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.69) compared with miAVR. The duration of hospitalisation was significantly longer in the miAVR group (mean difference: 1.92 (0.61 to 3.24)). Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment revealed ≤moderate quality of evidence in all outcomes. TAVR was associated with lower acute kidney injury rate and shorter length of hospitalisation, yet higher risks of midterm mortality and paravalvular leakage. Given the increasing adoption of both techniques, there is an urgent need for head-to-head randomised trials with adequate follow-up periods.