Insertable cardiac monitoring devices versus external cardiac monitoring for detecting atrial fibrillation and preventing the recurrence of stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for stroke, which is the second leading cause of death worldwide. It remains uncertain whether insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) enhance the ability to recognize AF over external cardiac monitoring in patients who have experienced a stroke. AIM: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether ICM devices are more effective than external cardiac monitoring for the detection of AF in stroke patients. METHODS: We included studies that reported an AF detection rate in stroke patients with a follow-up of at least 12 months. We analyzed the data of 1233 patients from 3 randomized control trials (RCTs). RESULTS: When compared to external cardiac monitoring, ICM devices (Medtronic Reveal LINQ and Reveal XT) showed a significantly higher detection rate of AF (RR = 5.04, 95% CI = 2.93-8.68; p < 0.05; ARR = 10.47%, NNT = 10). The ICM arm had significantly higher usage of oral anticoagulants (OAC) as compared to the control arm. (RR = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.89-4.02, p < 0.05). Additionally, ICM usage was associated with a higher incidence of mild to moderate adverse events (RR = 10.52, 95% CI =1.35-82.14; p = 0.02) and a higher number of severe adverse events as compared to the control arm (RR = 7.61, 95% CI = 1.36-42.51; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: ICM devices are associated with better detection rates of AF and higher usage of OAC as compared to external cardiac monitoring in post-stroke patients. However, ICM insertion is associated with a higher incidence of mild/moderate and severe adverse effects.

Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes of bioabsorbable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: One million individuals in the USA die from acute myocardial infarction (MI), which currently affects 3 million people globally. The available data about the early and late outcomes of both biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) and durable polymer drug-eluting stents exhibit inconsistency. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of BP-DES with DP-DES. METHODS: PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Clinical Trials.gov databases were used to find out studies comparing BP-DES to DP-DES. All the analyses used the random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were incorporated in this meta-analysis that involved 28,874 patients, out of which 11,997 received the BP Stent, and the rest of 16,578 received the DP stent. Thorough analyses revealed that the risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in the BP-DES group (5.4% vs 2.7%) (RR 1.22, p 0.02) for two years or less than two-year follow-up. For studies with more than two years of follow-up, all-cause death was 9.07% (599/6603) in BP-DES and 9.47% (531/5602) in the DP-DES group but failed to achieve statistically significant levels (RR 0.97, p 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed no clinically significant (P value was > 0.05) differences in all-cause death, cardiac death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), late stent thrombosis, device-oriented composite endpoint/target lesion failure (DOCE/TLF), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR), target vessel infarction (TVI) between BP-DES and DP-DES for more than two years of follow-up. Additionally, all-cause death was only outcomes which found to have a statistically significant difference for less than two years of follow-up, while remaining were statistically non-significant.