ABSTRACT
Background: A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an alternative to a transvenous implantable cardio defibrillator (TV-ICD). An S-ICD reduces the risk of transvenous lead placement. However, further research is required to determine how S-ICDs affect patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). In this study, we investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of S-ICDs versus TV-ICDs in HCM. Methods: On December 6th, 2023, we performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing S-ICDs with TV-ICDs in HCM patients published from 2004 until 2023. No language restrictions were applied. The primary outcome was appropriate shocks (AS), with inappropriate shocks (IAS), and device-related complications considered as secondary outcomes. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random effects model. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias of the studies. Results: The search yielded 1,114 records. Seven studies comprising 4,347 HCM patients were included, of whom 3,325 (76.0%) had TV-ICDs, and 1,022 (22.6%) had S-ICDs. There were 2,564 males (58.9%). The age range was from 39.1 to 49.4 years. Compared with the TV-ICD group, the S-ICD cohort had a significantly lower incidence of device-related complications (OR 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30-0.89; P=0.02; I2=4%). Contrastingly, there were no statistically significant differences in the occurrences of AS (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.22-1.08; P=0.08; I2=75%) and IAS (OR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.57-1.84; P=0.93; I2=65%) between the two device modalities. In the analysis of the overall risk of bias in the studies, we found 42% of them with several, 28% with moderate, and 14% with low risk of bias. Conclusions: In HCM patients, S-ICDs were associated with a lower incidence of device-associated problems than TV-ICDs. AS and IAS incidence rates were similar between groups. These findings may assist clinicians in determining the most suitable device for treating patients with HCM.
ABSTRACT
Saroglitazar is a novel medication for dyslipidemia, but its specific effects remain unclear. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of saroglitazar for managing dyslipidemia. The PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 2 and 4 mg of saroglitazar with placebos for treating dyslipidemia. A random-effects model calculated the pooled mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The study included seven RCTs involving 1975 patients. Overall, 340 (31.0%) and 513 (46.8%) participants received 2 and 4 mg of saroglitazar, respectively; 242 (22.11%) received the placebo. The mean ages ranged from 40.2 to 62.6 years, and 436 (39.8%) were women. Compared to the control group, 4 mg of saroglitazar significantly decreased the triglyceride and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels but did not affect the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. Furthermore, the alanine aminotransferase level significantly decreased, the creatine level significantly increased, and body weight did not differ between the groups. Finally, 4 mg of saroglitazar, compared to 2 mg, significantly lowered the triglyceride level. Saroglitazar (4 mg) may be an effective treatment, but safety concerns remain.