Antegrade Approach versus Retrograde Approach Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion: An updated Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Retrograde approach has notably improved success rates of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, longer procedural time, increase use of fluoroscopy and contrast dye have been reported in retrograde techniques in CTO PCI. We aimed to study in-hospital and long-term outcomes of retrograde approach versus antegrade approach in CTO PCI. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, WOS, and Cochrane Central until June, 2023 to include all relevant studies that compared retrograde approach versus antegrade approach in patients with CTO PCI. We synthesized the outcome data using a random-effects model, expressing the effect estimates as odds ratios (OR) or mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total of 18 studies comprising 18,830 patients were included in the analysis. Regarding in-hospital outcomes, antegrade approach was associated with lower odds of MACE (OR= 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.51), all-cause mortality (OR= 0.35, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.64), MI (OR= 0.36, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.53), urgent pericardiocentesis (OR= 0.27, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.46), CIN (OR= 0.46, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.65), procedural complications (OR= 0.52, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.83), target vessel perforation (OR= 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.64). while antegrade was associated with higher success rates (OR= 1.16, 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.22). CONCLUSION: Compared to antegrade technique, retrograde was associated with higher risk for in-hospital and long-term adverse events, and preferably should be performed in more complex CTO lesions.

Comparative effectiveness of ultrathin vs. standard strut drug-eluting stents: insights from a large-scale meta-analysis with extended follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Newer generation ultrathin strut stents are associated with less incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the short term. However, its long-term effect on different cardiovascular outcomes remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: We aim to identify the effects of newer-generation ultrathin-strut stents vs. standard thickness second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) on long-term outcomes of revascularization in coronary artery disease. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registries that compare newer-generation ultrathin-strut (< 70 mm) with thicker strut (> 70 mm) DES to evaluate cardioprotective effects over a period of up to 5 years. Primary outcome was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary outcomes included the components of TLF, stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death were pooled as the standardized mean difference between the two groups from baseline to endpoint. RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs and two prospective registries (103,101 patients) in this analysis. The overall effect on the primary outcome was in favor of second-generation ultrathin struts stents in terms of TLF at ≥ 1 year, ≥ 2 years, and ≥ 3 years (P value = 0.01, 95% CI [0.75, 0.96]), P value = 0.003, 95% CI [0.77, 0.95]), P value = 0.007, 95% CI [0.76, 0.96]), respectively. However, there was no reported benefit in terms of TLF when we compared the two groups at ≥ 5 years (P value = 0.21), 95% CI [0.85, 1.04]). Some of the reported components of the primary and secondary outcomes, such as TLR, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and TVMI, showed the same pattern as the TLF outcome. CONCLUSION: Ultrathin-strut DES showed a beneficial effect over thicker strut stents for up to 3 years. However, at the 5-year follow-up, the ultrathin strut did not differ in terms of TLF, TLR, TVR, and TVMI compared with standard-thickness DES, with similar risks of patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), MI, ST, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality.

Evaluation of Alternative Treatment Strategies for Bile Acid Malabsorption in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Bile acid malabsorption (BAM) is characterized by chronic watery diarrhea resulting from excessive bile acids in the feces. BAM is often an overlooked cause of chronic diarrhea, with its prevalence not being sufficiently researched. This review aimed to assess existing literature that explores diverse treatment strategies, to review the published studies that examine the various therapies for BAM patients, emphasizing their influence on clinical results. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review of various databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and EMBASE. Our criteria for inclusion focused on randomized controlled studies (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of different treatment options for patients with BAM. To rank the treatments, we adopted the frequentist approach through the "netrank" function of the network meta-analysis (NMA). Moreover, we utilized the "netsplit" function in the NMA to separate direct and indirect evidence. Our analysis was carried out using RStudio version 1.4.1717 (2009 - 2021 RStudio, Inc.), and we used the "netmeta" and "meta" packages for NMA. Results: We found seven relevant articles involving 213 participants, the average age being approximately 50 years, including 53 males and 92 females. Of the drugs examined, tropifexor was proved to be the most effective in raising the fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19) levels and reducing the 7 alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one (C4) levels, compared to the placebo (mean difference (MD) = 335.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) (334.86, 335.74), MD = -24.60, 95% CI (-25.37, -23.83); respectively). Compared to colesevelam and the placebo, liraglutide was more efficient in decreasing fecal bile acid concentration (liraglutide; MD = -19, 95% CI (-37.61, -0.39)). Conclusions: Tropifexor has been identified as the most successful medication in mitigating BAM symptoms. To ensure more accurate results, there is a need for randomized controlled clinical trials that involve a larger participant pool.

Transvenous Compared With Leadless Pacemakers: A meta-analysis comparing TP versus LP.

This study aims to compare the effectiveness of leadless pacemakers (LPs) and transvenous pacemakers and to examine the safety of both methods. We included patients undergoing single-chamber pacemaker implantation, either LP or TVP. Our outcomes were successful implantation rate, major complication, vascular injury, tamponade, and pneumothorax. We performed a double-arm analysis comparing LP versus TVP, with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. A total of 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Regarding efficacy endpoints, RR revealed no significant difference between the LP and transvenous pacemaker groups in terms of successful rate of implantation (RR = 1.00; P = 0.77). Regarding safety outcomes, LP experienced lower incidence of major complications (RR = 0.47; P = 0.01), infection (RR = 0.24; P = 0.001), and tamponade (RR = 0.36; P = 0.01). There was no significant difference between both groups regarding pneumothorax (RR = 0.35; P = 0.22) and vascular injury (RR = 1.55; P = 0.25). The study findings suggest that both LPs and TVPs have similar effectiveness. Moreover, the incidences of pneumothorax, vascular injuries, and major complications were found to be comparable between the 2 methods. However, LPs were found to have lower rates of infection and tamponade.