ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (PeAF) is a challenging case for rhythm control modalities. Catheter ablation is the mainstay in PeAF management; however, data regarding the comparative safety and efficacy of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for PeAF is still limited. We aim to compare the safety and efficacy of CBA versus RFA for PeAF ablation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through October 2023. RevMan version 5.4 software was used to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42023480314. RESULTS: Three RCTs with 400 patients were included. There was no significant difference between RFA and CBA regarding AF recurrence (RR: 0.77, 95% CI [0.50, 1.20], P = 0.25), atrial tachycardia or atrial flutter recurrence (RR: 0.54, 95% CI [0.11, 2.76], P = 0.46), and any arrhythmia recurrence (RR: 0.96, 95% CI [0.70, 1.31], P = 0.80). CBA was significantly associated with decreased total procedure duration (MD: - 45.34, 95% CI [- 62.68, - 28.00], P < 0.00001), with no significant difference in fluoroscopy duration (MD: 3.59, 95% CI [- 5.13, 12.31], P = 0.42). Safety parameters were similar in both groups, including the incidence of any complications, phrenic nerve palsy (RR: 2.91 with 95% CI [0.31, 27.54], P = 0.35), access site complications (RR: 0.33 with 95% CI [0.05, 2.03], P = 0.23), and pericardial effusion. CONCLUSIONS: In PeAF catheter ablation, CBA is comparable to RFA in terms of safety and efficacy. Also, CBA is associated with a shorter total procedure duration.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been utilized as a low-cost intervention to improve healthcare process measures. Thus, we aim to estimate CDSS efficacy to optimize adherence to oral anticoagulant guidelines in eligible patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from PubMed, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL through August 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42023471806. RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with a total of 25,573 patients. There was no significant difference, with the use of CDSS compared to routine care, in the number of patients prescribed anticoagulants (RR: 1.06, 95% CI [0.98, 1.14], P = 0.16), the number of patients prescribed antiplatelets (RR: 1.01 with 95% CI [0.97, 1.06], P = 0.59), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.19, 95% CI [0.31, 4.50], P = 0.80), major bleeding (RR: 0.84, 95% CI [0.21, 3.45], P = 0.81), and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR: 1.05, 95% CI [0.52, 2.16], P = 0.88). However, CDSS was significantly associated with reduced incidence of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.18, 95% CI [0.06, 0.54], P = 0.002) and cerebral or systemic embolic event (RR: 0.11, 95% CI [0.01, 0.83], P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: We report no significant difference with the use of CDSS compared to routine care in anticoagulant or antiplatelet prescription in eligible patients with AF. CDSS was associated with a reduced incidence of myocardial infarction and cerebral or systemic embolic events.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Optimal clinical outcome with successful recanalization from endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) requires optimal blood pressure (BP) management. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the intensive BP target (<â¯140â¯mmâ¯Hg) versus the standard BP target (<â¯180â¯mmâ¯Hg) after EVT for acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) obtained from PubMed, Embase Cochrane, Scopus, and WOS until September 7th, 2023. We used the fixed-effect model to report dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42023463206. RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 1559 patients. There was no difference between intensive BP and standard BP targets regarding the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) change after 24â¯h [MD: 0.44 with 95% CI (0.0, 0.87), Pâ¯= 0.05]. However, the intensive BP target was significantly associated with a decreased risk of excellent neurological recovery (mRSâ¯≤ 1) [RR: 0.87 with 95% CI (0.76, 0.99), Pâ¯= 0.03], functional independence (mRSâ¯≤ 2) [RR: 0.81 with 95% CI (0.73, 0.90), Pâ¯= 0.0001] and independent ambulation (mRSâ¯≤ 3) [RR: 0.85 with 95% CI (0.79, 0.92), Pâ¯< 0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: An intensive BP target after EVT is associated with worse neurological recovery and significantly decreased rates of functional independence and independent ambulation compared to the standard BP target. Therefore, the intensive BP target should be avoided after EVT for acute ischemic stroke.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: High-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation has emerged as an alternative to conventional standard-power long-duration (SPLD) ablation. We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of HPSD versus SPLD for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from PubMed, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were performed through August 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42023471797. RESULTS: We included six RCTs with a total of 694 patients. HPSD was significantly associated with a decreased total procedure time (MD: -22.88 with 95% CI [-36.13, -9.63], P = 0.0007), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) time (MD: -19.73 with 95% CI [-23.93, -15.53], P < 0.00001), radiofrequency time (MD: -10.53 with 95% CI [-12.87, -8.19], P < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference between HPSD and SPLD ablation with respect to the fluoroscopy time (MD: -0.69 with 95% CI [-2.00, 0.62], P = 0.30), the incidence of esophageal lesions (RR: 1.15 with 95% CI [0.43, 3.07], P = 0.77), and the incidence of first pass isolation (RR: 0.98 with 95% CI [0.88, 1.08], P = 0.65). CONCLUSION: HPSD ablation was significantly associated with decreased total procedure time, PVI time, and radiofrequency time compared with SPLD ablation. On the contrary, SPLD ablation was significantly associated with low maximum temperature.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and anemia are yet to be conclusively identified. Thus, we aim to assess the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion strategies for AMI and anemia. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from PubMed, web of science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed through November 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). (PROSPERO): ID: CRD42023490692. RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 4.325 patients. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding MACE whether at 30 days (RR: 0.93 with 95% CI [0.57-1.51], P â =â 0.76) or ≥ six months (RR: 1.17 with 95% CI [0.95-1.45], P â =â 0.14), all-cause mortality at 30 days (RR: 1.16 with 95% CI [0.95-1.40], P â =â 0.14) or ≥ six months (RR: 1.16 with 95% CI [0.88-1.53], P â =â 0.28). However, the liberal strategy was significantly associated with increased hemoglobin level change (MD: -1.44 with 95% CI [-1.68 to -1.20], P â <â 0.00001). However, the restrictive strategy was significantly associated with a lower incidence of acute lung injury (RR: 0.11 with 95% CI [0.02-0.60], P â =â 0.01). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the restrictive blood transfusion strategy and the liberal blood transfusion strategy regarding the clinical outcomes. However, restrictive blood transfusion strategy was significantly associated with a lower incidence of acute lung injury than liberal blood transfusion strategy.
Subject(s)
Acute Lung Injury , Anemia , Myocardial Infarction , Humans , Erythrocyte Transfusion , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Blood Transfusion , Anemia/diagnosis , Anemia/therapy , Myocardial Infarction/therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cardiotoxicity is one of the most common adverse events of the chemotherapy. Physical exercise was shown to be cardioprotective. We aim to estimate the efficacy and safety of exercise in cancer patients receiving cardiotoxic chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane, Clinical Trials.gov, and MedRxiv through July 17th, 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42023460902. RESULTS: We included thirteen RCTs with a total of 952 patients. Exercise significantly increased VO2 peak (MD: 1.95 with 95% CI [0.59, 3.32], P = 0.005). However, there was no significant effect regarding left ventricular ejection fraction, global longitudinal strain, cardiac output, stroke volume, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular end-systolic volume, E/A ratio, resting heart rate, peak heart rate, resting systolic blood pressure, and resting diastolic blood pressure. Also, there was no significant difference regarding any adverse events (AEs) (RR: 4.44 with 95% CI [0.47, 41.56], P = 0.19), AEs leading to withdrawal (RR: 2.87 with 95% CI [0.79, 10.43], P = 0.11), serious AEs (RR: 3.00 with 95% CI [0.14, 65.90], P = 0.49), or all-cause mortality (RR: 0.25 with 95% CI [0.03, 2.22], P = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Exercise is associated with increased VO2 peak in cancer patients receiving cardiotoxic chemotherapy. However, there was no significant difference between exercise and usual care regarding the echocardiographic and safety outcomes.
ABSTRACT
Background: Insulin icodec is a novel basal insulin analog with once-weekly subcutaneous administration. We aim to estimate the efficacy and safety of insulin icodec vs long-acting insulin (insulin glargine and degludec) in type II diabetic patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through May 29, 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Our primary outcome was glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) change. Results: We included 7 RCTs with a total of 3183 patients. Insulin icodec was associated with significantly decreased HbA1C (MD: -0.15 with 95% CI [-0.24, -0.06], P = .002) and increased percentage of time with glucose in range (TIR) (MD: 4.06 with 95% CI [2.06, 6.06], P = .0001). However, insulin icodec was associated with increased body weight (MD: 0.57 with 95% CI [0.45, 0.70], P = .00001). Also, there was no difference regarding any serious adverse events (AEs) (RR: 0.96 with 95% CI [0.76, 1.20], P = .7) or AEs leading to withdrawal (RR: 1.54 with 95% CI [0.84, 2.82], P = .16). However, insulin icodec was associated with increased any AEs incidence (RR: 1.06 with 95% CI [1.01, 1.12], P = .02). Conclusion: Insulin icodec was associated with decreased HbA1C, increased TIR, with similar hypoglycemic and serious AEs. However, it was also associated with increased body weight and the incidence of any AEs.
ABSTRACT
Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has improved outcomes in patients with heart failure, including the use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, which can hinder the excretion of potassium, resulting in hyperkalaemia. New potassium binders (NPBs) can prevent this adverse effect; however, the efficacy and safety of NPB for this indication have not been fully established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane through 26 April 2023. The risk of bias assessment was conducted, following Cochrane's updated Risk of Bias 2 assessment tool. We used the fixed-effects model to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023426113). We included six RCTs with a total of 1432 patients. NPB was significantly associated with successful mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) optimization [RR: 1.13 with 95% CI (1.02-1.25), P = 0.02], decreased patients with MRA at less than the target dose [RR: 0.72 with 95% CI (0.57-0.90), P = 0.004], and decreased hyperkalaemic episodes [RR: 0.42 with 95% CI (0.24-0.72), P = 0.002]. However, there was no difference between NPB and placebo regarding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ANRi) optimization [RR: 1.02 with 95% CI (0.89-1.17), P = 0.76] and serum potassium change [MD: -0.31 with 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.00), P = 0.05], with an acceptable safety profile except for the increased incidence of hypokalaemia with NPB [RR: 1.57 with 95% CI (1.12-2.21), P = 0.009]. NPB has been shown to improve GDMT outcomes by enhancing MRA optimization and reducing hyperkalaemic episodes. However, there are limited data on the effects of NPB on ACEi/ARB/ANRi optimization. Future RCTs should investigate ACEi/ARB/ANRi optimization and conduct head-to-head comparisons of NPB (patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate).
