Atrial fibrillation cryoablation is an effective day case treatment: the UK PolarX vs. Arctic Front Advance experience.

AIMS: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). There are limited data on the PolarX Cryoballoon. The study aimed to establish the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of same day discharge for Cryoballoon PVI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Multi-centre study across 12 centres. Procedural metrics, safety profile, and procedural efficacy of the PolarX Cryoballoon with the Arctic Front Advance (AFA) Cryoballoon were compared in a cohort large enough to provide definitive comparative data. A total of 1688 patients underwent PVI with cryoablation (50% PolarX and 50% AFA). Successful PVI was achieved with 1677 (99.3%) patients with 97.2% (n = 1641) performed as day case procedures with a complication rate of <1%. Safety, procedural metrics, and efficacy of the PolarX Cryoballoon were comparable with the AFA cohort. The PolarX Cryoballoon demonstrated a nadir temperature of -54.6 ± 7.6°C, temperature at 30 s of -38.6 ± 7.2°C, time to -40°C of 34.1 ± 13.7 s, and time to isolation of 49.8 ± 33.2 s. Independent predictors for achieving PVI included time to reach -40°C [odds ratio (OR) 1.34; P < 0.001] and nadir temperature (OR 1.24; P < 0.001) with an optimal cut-off of ≤34 s [area under the curve (AUC) 0.73; P < 0.001] and nadir temperature of ≤-54.0°C (AUC 0.71; P < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale UK multi-centre study has shown that Cryoballoon PVI is a safe, effective day case procedure. PVI using the PolarX Cryoballoon was similarly safe and effective as the AFA Cryoballoon. The cryoablation metrics achieved with the PolarX Cryoballoon were different to that reported with the AFA Cryoballoon. Modified cryoablation targets are required when utilizing the PolarX Cryoballoon.

Gastrointestinal treatment-related adverse events of combined immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-analysis.

Introduction: Combined immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause gastrointestinal adverse events. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of pooled colonic, hepatic and pancreatic treatment-related adverse events of combined ICI. Results: 53 trials reporting treatment-related adverse events in 6581 patients. All grade diarrhea was the most common adverse event seen in 25.4% patients, followed by all grade hepatitis in nearly 13% patients and pancreatitis in nearly 7.5% patients. Conclusion: Our study provides pooled data of treatment-related adverse events from different combination immune checkpoint inhibitors use in solid tumors and demonstrates a high incidence of all grades and ≥3 grade gastrointestinal adverse events. Further studies are required to characterize these adverse events and assess their overall impact on treatment course and outcomes.

The article talks about a type of medicine called immune checkpoint inhibitors that are used to treat cancer. These medicines can sometimes cause problems in the stomach and liver when used in combination with other cancer treatments, which can lead to hospitalization or, rarely, death. We performed a study on 6581 people who took these medicines in combination with another treatment and determined exactly how often these side effects happened. We also looked at which combinations of medicines were safer. This information can help doctors identify the side effects early and treat them. It can also help scientists design more studies to learn more about these side effects and how to prevent them.

Efficacy of topical hemostatic agents in malignancy-related GI bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite advances in endoscopic therapies, malignancy-related GI bleeding remains difficult to manage with high rates of treatment failure and rebleeding. Topical hemostatic agents (THAs) are easier to apply to the wide bleeding surface of tumors. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of THAs in malignancy-related GI bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases to identify studies reporting on the use of THAs in malignancy-related GI bleeding. The primary outcome was the achievement of hemostasis; secondary outcomes were early rebleeding (≤3 days), delayed rebleeding (>3 days), aggregate rebleeding, all-cause mortality, and GI bleeding-related mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions was done for all outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 355 citations, 16 studies with 530 patients were included. Primary hemostasis was achieved in 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.5-96.0). Early rebleeding was seen in 13.9% (95% CI, 9.7-19.4) and delayed rebleeding in 11.4% (95% CI, 5.8-21.1). Aggregate rebleeding was seen in 24.2% (95% CI, 18.5-31.0). All-cause mortality was 33.1% (95% CI, 23.7-44.0), whereas GI bleeding-related mortality occurred in 5.9% (95% CI, 2.2%-14.8). CONCLUSIONS: THAs are highly effective for achieving primary hemostasis in malignancy-related GI bleeding. It should be considered as an alternative to traditional endotherapy methods in malignancy-related GI bleeding. Future studies should be designed to evaluate its efficacy and safety as a primary method of hemostasis as compared with traditional endotherapy measures.