RESUMEN
Background: Inhaled hypertonic saline (HS) is an effective mucolytic agent in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). However, adverse events can impair the clinical utility of hypertonic saline (HS) in this patient population. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of hyaluronic acid (HA) in reducing these adverse events. Methods: A literature search was conducted across three electronic databases (Medline, Cochrane Central, and EMBASE) from inception through February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of hyaluronic acid (HA) in reducing adverse events in patients taking hypertonic saline (HS) for CF were included in the analysis. Outcomes of interest included cough, throat irritation, unpleasant taste, and FEV1. Evaluations were reported as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (CRBT) was employed to assess the quality of RCTs. The New Castle Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of observational studies. Results: From the 1960 articles retrieved from the initial search, five relevant studies (n=236 patients) were included in the final analysis. Compared with patients only on HS, patients with HS and HA were significantly less likely to experience cough (RR: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72, p=0.001), throat irritation (RR: 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.81, p= 0.009), and unpleasant smell (RR: 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23 - 0.80, p=0.09). In addition, patients with HS with HA had significantly less forced expiratory volume (FEV1) (MD: -2.97; 95% CI, -3.79-2.15, p=0.52) compared to patients only on HS. Discussion: The addition of HA to HS was linked to a better tolerability profile. When HS was coupled with HA, there was a reduction in all side effects. This may permit tolerance of the medication in otherwise difficult patients, improve adherence to patients receiving frequent inhalations, and improve therapeutic outcomes. Conclusion: The addition of HA is advantageous in CF patients who require continuous HS therapy and have previously shown poor tolerance to therapy.
RESUMEN
Background: Optimal treatment regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. Therefore, the authors sought to compare the outcomes of ablation therapy versus pharmacological regimens in patients with AF. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing clinical outcomes between of ablation and pharmacological therapy in patients with AF. Stroke, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, heart failure (HF), and bleeding were among outcomes of interest. Mantel-Haenszel weighted random-effects model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs) with 95 % CIs. Results: The analysis included ~200 000 patients from 4 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant reduction in stroke among patients on ablation therapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI (0.43, 0.60), P<0.00001, I2=10%], all-cause mortality [HR 0.64, 95% CI (0.45, 0.93), P=0.02, I2=58%], cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.35, 95% CI (0.25, 0.50), P<0.0001, I2=0%], and HF [HR 0.40, 95% CI (0.31, 0.53), P<0.00001, I2=30%]. However, no significant difference was revealed in the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization [HR 1.04, 95% CI (0.88, 1.23), P=0.66, I2=89%] and bleeding [HR 1.11, 95% CI (0.97, 1.27), P=0.13, I2=0%]. Conclusion: Ablation significantly reduces the risk of stroke, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF in AF patients, compared with medical therapy alone, supporting its use in clinical practice.
