Introduction: Glycemia is an important factor among critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). There is conflicting evidence on the preferred strategy of blood glucose control among patients with diabetes in the ICU. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis comparing tight with liberal blood glucose in critically ill patients with diabetes in the ICU. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tight versus liberal blood glucose control in critically ill patients with diabetes from inception to December 2023. We pooled odds-ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) with a random-effects model for binary endpoints. We used the Review Manager 5.17 and R version 4.3.2 for statistical analyses. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Cochrane tool for randomized trials (RoB2). Results: Eight RCTs with 4474 patients were included. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.95-1.28; P = .18; I² = 0%) between a tight and liberal blood glucose control. RoB2 identified all studies at low risk of bias and funnel plot suggested no evidence of publication bias. Conclusion: In patients with diabetes in the ICU, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between a tight and liberal blood glucose control. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023485032.
BACKGROUND: The benefit of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare catheter ablation and medical therapy (antiarrhythmics for rhythm or rate control) in patients with AF and HFpEF. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Outcomes were the composite end points of death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, all-cause rehospitalization, and HF hospitalization. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software, version 4.3.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. RESULTS: We included 20,257 patients from 8 studies. Of those, 3 were derived from RCTs, either through post hoc analysis or subgroup analysis, and 5 were observational studies. The median follow-up ranged from 24.6 to 61.2 months. Compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation was associated with a statistically significant lower risk of death or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.83; P = .001; I2 = 66%), all-cause death (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.46-0.99; P = .047; I2 = 61%), cardiovascular death (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.21-0.84; P = .014; I2 = 22%), and HF hospitalization (HR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23-0.82; P = .011; I2 = 87%). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, catheter ablation was associated with a lower risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, and all-cause rehospitalization in comparison to medical therapy in patients with AF and HFpEF.
