Percutaneous Coronary Intervention before or after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Involving 1531 Patients.

Background: The optimal timing to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not well established. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing PCI before versus after TAVR. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to 5 April 2024 for studies that compared PCI before and after TAVR reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The analyzed outcomes were mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) at follow-up. Results: A total of 3 studies involving 1531 patients (pre-TAVR PCI n = 1240; post-TAVR PCI n = 291) were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. Mortality was higher in the pre-TAVR PCI group (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.19-5.20; p = 0.02). No differences were found between PCI before and after TAVR for the risk of stroke (OR: 3.58; 95% CI: 0.70-18.15; p = 0.12) and MI (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.30-1.42; p = 0.29). Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed in patients with stable CAD undergoing TAVR that PCI after TAVR is associated with lower mortality compared with PCI before TAVR.

Catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and absence of structural heart disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Introduction: Rhythm control strategy in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) can be performed with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) or catheter ablation (CA). Nevertheless, a clear overview of the percentage of freedom from AF over time and complications is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CA versus AAD. Methods: We searched databases up to 5 May 2023 for RCTs focusing on CA versus AAD. The study endpoints were atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) recurrence, progression to persistent AF, overall complications, stroke/TIA, bleedings, heart failure (HF) hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Results: Twelve RCTs enrolling 2393 patients were included. CA showed a significantly lower AT recurrence rate at one year [27.4 % vs 56.3 %; RR: 0.45; p < 0.00001], at two years [39.9 % vs 62.7 %; RR: 0.56; p = 0.0004] and at three years [45.7 % vs 80.9 %; RR: 0.54; p < 0.0001] compared to AAD. Furthermore, CA significantly reduced the progression to persistent AF [1.6 % vs 12.9 %; RR: 0.14; p < 0.00001] with no differences in overall complications [5.9 % vs 4.5 %; RR: 1.27; p = 0.22], stroke/TIA [0.6 % vs 0.6 %; RR: 1.10; p = 0.86], bleedings [0.4 % vs 0.6 %; RR: 0.90; p = 0.84], HF hospitalization [0,3% vs 0,7%; RR: 0.56; p = 0.37] and all-cause mortality [0,4% vs 0.5 %; RR: 0.78; p = 0.67]. Subgroup analysis between radiofrequency and cryo-ablation or considering RCTs with CA as first-line treatment showed no significant differences. Conclusion: CA demonstrated lower rates of AT recurrence over the time, as well as a significant reduction in the progression from paroxysmal to persistent AF, with no difference in terms of energy source, complications, and clinical outcomes.

High power short duration versus low power long duration ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: High-power-short-duration (HPSD) radiofrequency (RF) ablation is a viable alternative to low-power-long-duration (LPLD) RF for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Nevertheless, trials showed conflicting results regarding atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences and few data concerning complications. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing HPSD versus LPLD. METHODS: We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 31, 2023 focusing on HPSD versus LPLD. The study endpoints were AF recurrence, procedural times and overall complications. RESULTS: Five studies enrolling 424 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 61.1 years; 54.3% paroxysmal AF; mean LVEF 58.2%). Compared to LPLD, HPSD showed a significantly lower AF recurrence rate [16.3% vs. 30,1%; RR: 0.54 (95% CI: 0.38-0.79); p = 0.001] at a mean 10.9 months follow-up. Moreover, HPSD led to a significant reduction in total procedural time [MD: -26.25 min (95%CI: -42.89 to -9.61); p = 0.002], PVI time [MD: -26.44 min (95%CI: -38.32 to -14.55); p < 0.0001], RF application time [MD: -8.69 min (95%CI: -11.37 to -6.01); p < 0.00001] and RF lesion number [MD: -7.60 (95%CI: -10.15 to -5.05); p < 0.00001]. No difference was found in either right [80.4% vs. 78.2%; RR: 1.04 (95% CI: 0.81-1.32); p = 0.77] or left [92.3% vs. 90.2%; RR: 1.02 (95% CI: 0.94-1.11); p = 0.58] first-pass isolation and overall complications [6% vs. 3.7%; RR: 1.45 (95%CI: 0.53-3.99); p = 0.47] between groups. CONCLUSION: In our metanalysis of randomized trials, HPSD ablation appeared to be associated to a significantly improved freedom from AF and shorter procedures, without increasing the risk of complications.

Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His bundle pacing (HBP) are the main strategies to achieve conduction system pacing (CSP), but only observational studies with few patients have compared the two pacing strategies, sometimes with unclear results given the different definitions of the feasibility and safety outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare the success and complications of LBBAP versus HBP. METHODS: We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 22, 2023, and focusing on LBBAP versus HBP. The study endpoints were CSP success rate, device-related complications, CSP lead-related complications and non-CSP lead-related complications. RESULTS: Fifteen observational studies enrolling 2491 patients met the inclusion criteria. LBBAP led to a significant increase in procedural success [91.1% vs 80.9%; RR: 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08-1.22); p < 0.00001] with a significantly lower complication rate [1.8% vs 5.2%; RR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.78); p = 0.003], lead-related complications [1.1% vs 4.3%; RR: 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21-0.72); p = 0.003] and lead failure/deactivation [0.2% vs 3.9%; RR: 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.35); p < 0.00001] than HBP. No significant differences were found between CSP lead dislodgement and non-CSP lead-related complications. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of observational studies showed a higher success rate of LBBAP compared to HBP with a lower incidence of complications.

Endocardial versus epicardial pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients after device extraction: a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Pacemaker-dependent (PM) patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection require implantation of a temporary-pacemaker (TP) and delayed endocardial reimplantation or implantation of an epicardial-pacing-system (EPI) before device extraction. Our aim was to compare the TP and EPI-strategy after CIED extraction through a meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched electronic databases up to 25 March 2022, for observational studies that reported clinical outcomes of PM-dependent patients implanted with TP or EPI-strategy after device extraction. RESULTS: 3 studies were included enrolling 339 patients (TP: 156 patients; EPI: 183 patients). TP compared to EPI showed reduction in the composite outcome of relevant complications (all-cause death, infections, need for revision or upgrading of the reimplanted CIED) (12.1% vs 28.9%; RR: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.25-0.81; p = 0.008) and a trend in reduction of all-cause death (8.9% vs 14.2%; RR: 0.58; 95%CI: 0.33-1.05; p = 0.07). Furthermore, TP-strategy proved to reduce need of upgrading (0% vs 12%; RR: 0.07; 95%CI: 0.01-0.52; p = 0.009), reintervention on reimplanted CIED (1.9% vs 14.7%; RR: 0.15; 95%CI: 0.05-0.48; p = 0.001) and significant increase in pacing threshold (0% vs 5.4%; RR: 0.17; 95%CI: 0.03-0.92; p = 0.04), with a longer discharge time (MD: 9.60 days; 95%CI: 1.98-17.22; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: TP-strategy led to a reduction of the composite outcome of all-cause death and complications, upgrading, reintervention on reimplanted CIED, and risk of increase in pacing threshold compared to EPI-strategy, with longer discharge time.

Left bundle branch pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalization and all-cause mortality in HF patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Biventricular pacing (BVP) is the gold standard for achieving CRT, but about 30%-40% of patients do not respond to BVP-CRT. Recent studies showed that left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provided remarkable results in CRT. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients. METHODS: We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to December 29, 2022 and focusing on LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients. The primary endpoint was HF hospitalization. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Risk Ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). RESULTS: Ten studies enrolling 1063 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to BVP-CRT, LBBP-CRT led to significant reduction in HF hospitalization [7.9% vs.14.5%; RR: 0.60 (95%CI: 0.39-0.93); p = .02], QRSd [MD: 30.26 ms (95%CI: 26.68-33.84); p < .00001] and pacing threshold [MD: -0.60 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.48); p < .00001] at follow up. Furthermore, LBBP-CRT improved LVEF [MD: 5.78% (95%CI: 4.78-6.77); p < .00001], the rate of responder [88.5% vs.72.5%; RR: 1.19 (95%CI: 1.07-1.32); p = .002] and super-responder [60.8% vs. 36.5%; RR: 1.56 (95%CI: 1.27-1.91); p < .0001] patients and the NYHA class [MD: -0.42 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.14); p < .00001] compared to BVP-CRT. CONCLUSION: In HF patients, LBBP-CRT was superior to BVP-CRT in reducing HF hospitalization. Further significant benefits occurred within the LBBP-CRT group in terms of QRSd, LVEF, pacing thresholds, NYHA class and the rate of responder and super-responder patients.

Which is the best Myocardial Work index for the prediction of coronary artery disease? A data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) plays a key role to prevent adverse cardiac events such as myocardial infarction and Left Ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Myocardial Work (MW) indices derived from echocardiographic speckle tracking data in combination with non-invasive blood pressure recordings seems promising to predict CAD even in the absence of impairments of standard echocardiographic parameters. Our aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of MW indices to predict CAD and to assess intra- and inter-observer variability of MW through a meta-analysis. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for observational studies evaluating the MW indices diagnostic accuracy for predicting CAD and intra- and inter-observer variability of MW indices. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curves were assessed. RESULTS: Five studies enrolling 501 patients met inclusion criteria. Global Constructive Work (GCW) had the best pooled sensitivity (89%) followed by GLS (84%), Global Work Index (GWI) (82%), Global Work Efficiency (GWE) (80%), and Global Wasted Work (GWW) (75%). GWE had the best pooled specificity (78%) followed by GWI (75%), GCW (70%), GLS (68%), and GWW (61%). GCW had the best accuracy according to SROC curves, with an area under the curve of 0.86 compared to 0.84 for GWI, 0.83 for GWE, 0.79 for GLS, and 0.74 for GWW. All MW indices had an excellent intra- and inter-observer variability. CONCLUSIONS: GCW is the best MW index proving best diagnostic accuracy in the prediction of CAD with an excellent reproducibility.