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
BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPs) are promising alternatives to traditional transvenous pacemakers (TVPs), but their comparative effectiveness and safety in clinical outcomes remain uncertain. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies comparing LPs and TVPs. A restricted maximum likelihood random-effects model was used for all outcomes. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. We performed a subgroup analysis with studies with multivariate-adjusted data. RESULTS: We included 21 studies involving 47,229 patients, of whom 12,199 (25.8%) underwent LP implantation. Compared with TVPs, LPs were associated with a significantly lower risk of overall complications (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45-0.81; p < 0.01), dislodgement (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.20-0.56; p < 0.01), and pneumothorax (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.16-0.46; p < 0.01). No significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed in the overall analysis (OR 1.43; 95% CI 0.65-3.15; p = 0.35) and in studies with multivariate-adjusted data (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.65-2.78; p = 0.43). However, LPs were associated with a higher risk of pericardial effusion (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.39-4.38; p < 0.01) and cardiac tamponade (OR 3.75; 95% CI 2.41-5.83; p < 0.01). LPs also demonstrated a lower pacing capture threshold (MD -0.19 V; 95% CI [-0.23 V]-[-0.16 V]; p < 0.01), but no significant difference in impedance (MD 32.63 ohms; 95% CI [-22.50 ohms]-[87.76 ohms]; p = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that LPs were associated with lower overall complication rates and similar effectiveness to TVPs. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these results.
Subject(s)
Pacemaker, Artificial , Humans , Equipment Design , Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/methods , Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Postoperative Complications , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/therapyABSTRACT
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.