Role of Intravascular Imaging in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Intravascular imaging (IVI) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to improve clinical outcomes. However, data is limited in complex PCI and the adoption remains low. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials comparing IVI with conventional angiography in patients who underwent complex PCI. The primary outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization. Random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 10 randomized controlled trials comprising 6,368 patients with 3,452 in the IVI group and 2,916 in the angiography group were included. The mean duration of follow up was 2 years, mean age was 65 years and 73% of patients were men. As compared with PCI with routine angiography, the IVI-guided PCI group had significantly lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.75, p <0.00001), stent thrombosis (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.92, p = 0.02), cardiovascular deaths (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.68, p = 0.0001), target lesion revascularization (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, p <0.0001) and target vessel revascularization (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.80, p = 0.0003). All-cause deaths and MI were similar in the 2 groups. In conclusion, among patients who underwent complex PCI, IVI reduces adverse events, importantly stent thrombosis and repeat revascularizations, compared with angiography alone guided PCI.

Effect of Furosemide Versus Torsemide on Hospitalizations and Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Loop diuretics are essential in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) who develop congestion. Furosemide is the most commonly used diuretic; however, some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown varying results associated with torsemide and furosemide in terms of hospitalizations and mortality. We performed an updated meta-analysis of currently available RCTs comparing furosemide and torsemide to see if there is any difference in clinical outcomes in patients treated with these loop diuretics. PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for RCTs comparing the outcomes in patients with HF treated with furosemide versus torsemide. The primary end points included all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, cardiovascular-related hospitalizations, and HF-related hospitalizations. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 10 RCTs with 4,127 patients (2,088 in the furosemide group and 2,039 in the torsemide group) were included in this analysis. A total of 56% of the patients were men and the mean age was 68 years. No significant difference was noted in all-cause mortality between the furosemide and torsemide groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15, p = 0.70); however, patients treated with furosemide compared with torsemide had higher risks of cardiovascular hospitalizations (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.65, p = 0.001), HF-related hospitalizations (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.24, p = 0.001), and all-cause hospitalizations (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11, p = 0.02). In conclusion, patients with HF treated with torsemide have a reduced risk of hospitalizations compared with those treated with furosemide, without any difference in mortality. These data indicate that torsemide may be a better choice to treat patients with HF.

Safety and Effectiveness of Adjunctive Posterior Wall Isolation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

As the atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence rate remains high after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), additional left atrial posterior wall isolation (PWI) has been studied in randomized controlled trials, however, the results are conflicting. We performed an updated meta-analysis by searching online databases for the randomized controlled trials comparing the PWI + PVI group to the PVI alone group in patients with AF. The outcomes of interest were AF recurrence, all atrial arrhythmia recurrence, and atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence. Risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a random effects model. A total of 1,612 patients, with 807 in the PWI + PVI group and 805 in the PVI alone group were included. The mean age was 60 (9) years, 75% were men and 71% had persistent AF. The PWI + PVI group had lower AF recurrence as compared with the PVI alone group (25% vs 32%, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in all atrial arrhythmia recurrence (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.04, p = 0.16), atrial flutter/AT recurrence (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55, p = 0.19) or adverse event rates in the 2 groups (36 vs 31; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.77, p = 0.73). In conclusion, adjunctive PWI in addition to PVI can be achieved with lower AF recurrence but with a nonsignificant increase in atrial flutter/AT recurrence, resulting in an overall similar rate of all atrial arrhythmia recurrence without increasing the risk of adverse events, when compared with PVI alone strategy.