Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Optimal Medical Therapy for Severe Ischemic Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction.

Coronary artery disease is the most common cause of heart failure, which is the leading cause of cardiovascular-related death worldwide. There are insufficient data to make strong recommendations for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). In that context, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of PCI with those of optimal medical therapy alone in patients with severe ischemic LVSD. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2023. Our outcome of interest was all-cause mortality in patients undergoing PCI vs medical therapy. We used random effects models to aggregate data and to calculate pooled incidence and relative risk with 95% CIs. Four studies including 2 randomized controlled trials with 2080 patients (PCI, 1082; optimal medical therapy, 998) were included. All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between the groups: 168 patients (15.5%) in the PCI group vs 200 patients (20.0%) in the optimal medical therapy group (relative risk, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09; P=.25). In conclusion, the available evidence indicates that PCI does not improve all-cause mortality in patients with severe LVSD without lifestyle-limiting anginal symptoms. Further data are needed to identify subgroups of patients better served by each modality.

Comparison of Transfemoral versus Transsubclavian/Transaxillary access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Femoral access is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Safe alternative access, that represents about 15 % of TAVR cases, remains important for patients without adequate transfemoral access. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing transfemoral (TF) access versus transsubclavian or transaxillary (TSc/TAx) access in patients undergoing TAVR. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL Register, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through May 24, 2022) for studies comparing (TF) to (TSc/TAx) access for TAVR. A total of 21 studies with 75,995 unique patients who underwent TAVR (73,203 transfemoral and 2,792 TSc/TAx) were included in the analysis. There was no difference in the risk of in-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality between the two groups (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.36-1.13, P = 0.12) and (RR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.64-1.41, P = 0.81), while 1-year mortality was significantly lower in the TF TAVR group (RR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.67-0.93, P = 0.005). No significant differences in major bleeding (RR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.65-1.03, P = 0.09), major vascular complications (RR 1.14, 95 % CI 0.75-1.72, P = 0.53), and stroke (RR 0.66, 95 % CI 0.42-1.02, P = 0.06) were observed. In patients undergoing TAVR, TF access is associated with significantly lower 1-year mortality compared to TSc/TAx access without differences in major bleeding, major vascular complications and stroke. While TF is the preferred approach for TAVR, TSc/TAx is a safe alternative approach. Future studies should confirm these findings, preferably in a randomized setting.

IMPELLA VERSUS EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION IN CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

ABSTRACT: Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) carries high mortality. The roles of specific mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems are unclear. We compared the clinical outcomes of Impella versus extracorporal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with CS. Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis that was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through May 10, 2022) for studies comparing the outcomes of Impella versus ECMO in CS. We used random-effects models to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs). End points included in-hospital, 30-day, and 12-month all-cause mortality, successful weaning from MCS, bridge to transplant, all reported bleeding, stroke, and acute kidney injury. Results: A total of 10 studies consisting of 1,827 CS patients treated with MCS were included in the analysis. The risk of in-hospital all-cause mortality was significantly lower with Impella compared with ECMO (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-1.00; P = 0.05), whereas there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day (RR, 0.97, 95% CI, 0.82-1.16; P = 0.77) and 12-month mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.11; P = 0.32). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of successful weaning (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81-1.15; P = 0.70) and bridging to transplant (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.35; P = 0.56). There was less risk of bleeding and stroke in the Impella group compared with the ECMO group. Conclusions: In patients with CS, the use of Impella is associated with lower rates of in-hospital mortality, bleeding, and stroke than ECMO. Future randomized studies with adequate sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.

Outcomes of atherectomy in treating severely calcified coronary lesions in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Severely calcified coronary lesions with reduced left ventricular (LV) function result in worse outcomes. Atherectomy is used in treating such lesions when technically feasible. However, there is limited data examining the safety and efficacy of atherectomy without hemodynamic support in treating severely calcified coronary lesions in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of atherectomy in patient with reduced LVEF. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL Register and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through July 21, 2021) for studies evaluating the outcomes of atherectomy in patients with severe LV dysfunction. We used random-effect model to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The endpoints were in-hospital and long term all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: A total of 7 studies consisting of 2,238 unique patients were included in the analysis. The median follow-up duration was 22.4 months. The risk of in-hospital all-cause mortality using atherectomy in patients with severely reduced LVEF compared to the patients with moderate reduced or preserved LVEF was [2.4vs.0.5%; RR:5.28; 95%CI 1.65-16.84; P = 0.005], the risk of long term all-cause mortality was [21 vs. 8.8%; RR of 2.84; 95% CI 1.16-6.95; P = 0.02]. In-hospital TVR risk was 2.0 vs. 0.6% (RR: 4.15; 95% CI 4.15-15.67; P = 0.04) and long-term TVR was [6.0 vs. 9.9%; RR of 0.75; 95% CI 0.39-1.42; P = 0.37]. In-hospital MI was [7.1 vs. 5.4%; RR 1.63; 95% CI 0.91-2.93; P = 0.10], long-term MI was [7.5 vs. 5.7; RR 1.74; 95%CI 0.95-3.18; P = 0.07). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggested that the patients with severely reduced LVEF when using atherectomy devices experienced higher risk of clinical outcomes in the terms of all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality. As we know that the patients with severely reduced LVEF are inherently at increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes, this information should be considered hypothesis generating and utilized while discussing the risks and benefits of atherectomy in such high risk patients. Future studies should focus on the comparison of outcomes of different atherectomy devices in such patients. Adjusting for the inherent mortality risk posed by left ventricular dysfunction may be a strategy while designing a study.

Routine Invasive Strategy in Elderly Patients with Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

Invasive treatment with coronary angiography is preferred approach for patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) compared to medical therapy alone. The results from the randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compared the invasive treatment strategy vs. conservative approach in the elderly (≥75 years) with NSTE-ACS has been inconsistent. To compare invasive and conservative strategies in the elderly (>75 years) with NSTE-ACS. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL Register and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through July 10, 2021) for RCTs comparing invasive and conservative strategies in the elderly with NSTE-ACS. We used random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval(CI). A total of 6 RCT including 2,323 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The median follow-up duration was 13.5 months. When invasive approach was compared to conservative strategy, it showed no difference in all-cause mortality in patients aged ≥75 years with NSTE-ACS (RR of 0.85; 95% CI 0.70-1.04; P = 0.12; I2 = 0%). There was significant reduction in MI (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.49 0.71; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and unplanned revascularization (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.53, P <0.001, I2 = 0%). Invasive strategy was associated with higher risk of major bleeding when compared to conservative treatment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.21-3.74, P = 0.009, I2 = 0%). Comparison of both strategies showed no significant difference in stroke (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.38-1.46, P = 0.40; I2 = 0%). This updated meta-analysis suggests that in elderly patients (>75 years) with NSTE-ACS, a routine invasive strategy is associated with a reduction in MI and revascularization, while increasing the risk of major bleeding, but without difference in all-cause mortality and stroke.

Comparing Optical Coherence Tomography and Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Trends and Outcomes 2010-2019.

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) optimize percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by characterizing lesion morphology, accurately measuring vessel dimensions, and optimizing stent characteristics. We sought to compare the utilization of OCT and IVUS to guide inpatient PCI and their relative association with in-hospital mortality and readmission rates. We queried the National Readmission Database to identify patients undergoing intracoronary imaging-guided PCI from 2010 to 2019 and compared outcomes and readmission rates between patients undergoing OCT-guided PCI and IVUS-guided PCI. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to generate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of adverse outcomes between the 2 groups. Of 3,71,450 intracoronary imaging-guided PCI admissions, OCT (n = 12,808) was used less frequently than IVUS (n = 358,642). The use of OCT-guided PCI increased from 0.1% in 2010 to 0.6% in 2019 while the rate of IVUS-guided PCI increased from 7.2% in 2010 to 9.4% in 2019 (both ptrend <0.001). Patients undergoing OCT compared to IVUS had lower in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.69, P = 0.015) and 30-day readmission rate (aOR 0.91, P = 0.040) with no statistical difference in 90-day readmission rate (aOR 0.93, P = 0.065). Heart failure was the most common cause of 30-day and 90-day readmissions in both cohorts. There was no difference in the rate of acute kidney injury between the 2 modalities. In this in-patient admission database of intracoronary imaging-guided PCI, OCT-guided PCI during index hospitalization appears to be associated with lower in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission rates compared to IVUS-guided PCI with no difference in terms of the 90-day readmission rates.

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: While aortic valve replacement (AVR) is indicated for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), the appropriate management of asymptomatic severe AS remains unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of surgical AVR (SAVR) versus conservative treatment in patients with asymptomatic severe AS. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar for studies comparing outcomes of SAVR versus conservative treatment in asymptomatic severe AS. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each individual study. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, 30-day operative mortality, sudden cardiac death (SCD), heart failure hospitalization (HFH), myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies with 2685 patients were included. The mean age was above 60 years, and the median follow-up duration was 4 years. Compared to conservative treatment, SAVR was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.64) and HFH rates (RR 0.18; 95% CI 0.05-0.71). There were no significant differences in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.03-1.67), non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.23-1.03), 30-day operative mortality (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-2.32), SCD (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.05-2.89), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.04-5.52), and stroke rates (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.35-4.11) between the two strategies. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with asymptomatic severe AS, SAVR is associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality and HFH compared to conservative treatment. While SAVR is a promising option for asymptomatic severe AS, most studies were observational and nonrandomized; randomized trials are needed to establish a clear benefit.

Hypothermia versus normothermia after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The current guidelines recommend targeted temperature management (TTM) as part of the post-resuscitation care for comatose patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. These recommendations are based on the weak evidence of benefit seen in the early clinical trials. Recent large multicentered trials have failed to show a meaningful clinical benefit of hypothermia, unlike the earlier studies. Thus, to fully appraise the available data, we sought to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: We searched four databases for randomized controlled trials comparing therapeutic hypothermia (32-34 °C) with normothermia (≥36 °C with control of fever) in adult patients resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Independent reviewers did the title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and extraction. The primary outcome was mortality six months after cardiac arrest, and secondary outcomes were neurological outcomes and adverse effects. RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS: Six randomized controlled trials were included in this review. There was no significant difference between the hypothermia and normothermia groups in mortality till 6 months follow up after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67-1.16; n = 3243; I2 = 51%), or favorable neurological outcome (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.93-1.84; n = 3091; I2 = 68%). Rates of arrhythmias were notably higher in the hypothermia group than the normothermia group (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.20-1.71; n = 3029; I2 = 4%). However, odds for development of pneumonia showed no significant differences across two groups (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.98-1.31; n = 3056; I2 = 22%). Therefore, targeted hypothermia with a target temperature of 32-34 °C does not provide mortality benefit or better neurological outcome in patients resuscitated after the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest when compared with normothermia.

Ischemic and Bleeding Outcomes of Potent P2Y12 Inhibitor Antiplatelet Agents Versus Clopidogrel in Elderly Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The role of P2Y12 inhibition in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been well described in literature. However, the agent of choice is less clear among elderly patients (>65 years) who are at increased risk of bleeding. This meta-analysis was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of potent P2Y12 inhibitors vs. clopidogrel in this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov (inception through February 25, 2021) were searched for randomized studies comparing potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors to clopidogrel in elderly population presenting with ACS. Study endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed and p<0.05 was considered significant. Eight randomized studies with a total 10,081 patients were included in the final analysis. At mean follow up of 26 months, there were no significant differences between potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors and clopidogrel in MACE (HR 0.97, 95% CI [0.82-1.15]; p=0.73), all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% CI [0.75-1.10]; p=1.00), MI (HR 0.95, 95% CI [0.78-1.17]; p=0.64), and stroke (HR 1.24, 95% CI [0.82-1.86]; p=0.31). However, potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.82, 95% CI [0.68-0.98]; p=0.03), and an increase in major bleeding events (HR 1.32, 95% CI [1.09-1.59]; p<0.01). CONCLUSION: In comparison with clopidogrel, the use of potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors in elderly patients with ACS, is associated with a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular mortality with increased risk of bleeding events and no significant change in MACE outcomes.

Sex Differences in the Clinical Outcomes After Left Atrial Appendage Closure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as a reasonable alternative to oral anticoagulation in a selective group of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). While women are known to have higher risk of AF-related stroke, the impact of sex differences on the clinical outcomes of LAAO has not been well-studied. OBJECTIVE: We sought to perform a meta-analysis evaluating sex differences on the outcomes of patients undergoing LAAO. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (from inception to October 2021) for studies evaluating the impact of sex difference on LAAO procedural outcomes. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). In-hospital all-cause mortality and ischemic stroke were the primary endpoints. In-hospital pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade, major bleeding, technical success, device-related thrombus, and hospital length of stay were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 5 studies with 54,754 patients were included, of whom 22,461 (41%) were females. Female sex was associated with higher rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.46-3.26; P = 0.0001) and in-hospital ischemic stroke (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.06-2.61; P = 0.03) when compared with males. Females had higher rates of in-hospital major bleeding (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.40-2.67; P < 0.0001) and hospital length of stay >1 day (RR 1.38; 95% CI 1.33-1.45; P < 0.00001). There were no differences between females and males in terms of technical success (RR 1.00; 95% CI 1.00-1.00; P = 1.00) and device-related thrombus and (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.31-2.82; P = 0.91). CONCLUSION: Women are more likely to experience worse periprocedural outcomes with longer hospital stay after LAA closure. Further efforts are needed to increase the participation of women in clinical studies and to assess these differences to properly address the discrepancy in outcomes between men and women.

Coronary vasospasm: A narrative review.

Coronary artery vasospasm (CAVS) plays an important role in acute chest pain syndrome caused by transient and partial or complete occlusion of the coronary arteries. Pathophysiology of the disease remains incompletely understood, with autonomic and endothelial dysfunction thought to play an important role. Due to the dynamic nature of the disease, its exact prevalence is not entirely clear but is found to be more prevalent in East Asian and female population. Cigarette smoking remains a prominent risk factor, although CAVS does not follow traditional coronary artery disease risk factors. Many triggers continue to be identified, with recent findings identifying chemotherapeutics, allergens, and inflammatory mediators as playing some role in the exacerbation of CAVS. Provocative testing with direct visualization is currently the gold-standard for diagnosis, but non-invasive tests, including the use of biomarkers, are being increasingly studied to aid in the diagnosis. Treatment of the CAVS is an area of active research. Apart from risk factor modification, calcium channel blockers are currently the first line treatment, with nitrates playing an important adjunct role. High-risk patients with life-threatening complications should be considered for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), although timing criteria for escalated therapy require further investigation. The role of pharmaceuticals targeting oxidative stress remains incompletely understood.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence: A case report on the challenges in diagnosing ostial left main stenosis.

Because left main (LM) coronary artery stenosis is known to have higher mortality and morbidity compared to lesions in other territories, an early diagnosis and management are crucial to prevent worse outcomes. Due to limitations of coronary angiography (CA), the diagnosis of ostial LM stenosis solely based on CA may result in underdiagnosis of such lesions. Therefore, additional testing is often needed either by pressure wire or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to make appropriate diagnosis. We, hereby, present a case of left main ostial stenosis in a 56-year-old male that was missed on multiple coronary angiograms, and highlights many of the considerations in the diagnosis of LM disease.

A Case of Isolated External Iliac Vein Compression Syndrome and the Role of Advanced Imaging.

Isolated external iliac vein compression syndrome is an uncommon cause of nonthrombotic venous stenosis that causes chronic venous hypertension leading to painful swelling, skin discoloration, and ulcer formation. We present a case of an 86-year old man with refractory lower extremity edema for several years who had been treated with diuretics and antibiotics without relief of symptoms. With the help of invasive and noninvasive imaging modalities, we were able to diagnose and manage isolated nonthrombotic left external iliac vein stenosis as a result of ipsilateral external iliac artery compression.

NOAC-Based Sual Therapy Versus Warfarin-Based Triple Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have compared the use of dual therapy (DT), or one of the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) with a P2Y12 agent, versus triple therapy (TT), consisting of a vitamin-K antagonist (VKA) along with dual antiplatelet therapy, in patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We performed a meta-analysis and systematic review of RCTs to evaluate the safety and efficacy of NOAC-based DT in such patients. METHODS: The major efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis (ST), and urgent revascularization. The International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNM) was the major primary safety outcome. RESULTS: A total of 4 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis with 7942 total patients for analysis (DT: 4377 & TT: 3565). Compared to TT, DT resulted in similar risk of MACCE (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.94-1.34; P = 0.20) and other efficacy endpoints with a trend in increased risk of ST in the DT group (1.55; 0.99-2.44; P = 0.06). DT resulted in lower risk of ISTH major or CRNM bleeding (0.56; 0.41-0.76; P < 0.01), and all other bleeding outcomes except for a trend of reduced risk of TIMI minor bleeding. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo PCI or develop ACS, NOAC-based dual therapy reduces bleeding outcomes without significantly increasing ischemic outcomes. Future trials should explore the possible differences in stent thrombosis.

A Successful CardioMEMS™ Implantation via Brachial Vein Access: A Case Report.

The CardioMEMS™ HF system (Abbott, Chicago, IL), a wireless pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor, was approved by the FDA after demonstration of reduction of heart failure hospitalization in New York Heart Association class III patients. These devices are implanted into the desired PA branch via either common femoral or jugular vein access. However, in some patients who cannot undergo the procedure via these routine access sites for various reasons, alternative access is needed. We describe, to our knowledge, the first case of successful CardioMEMS™ implantation via brachial vein access.

Renal Denervation in the Management of Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Sham-Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Sympathetic renal denervation (RD) can potentially reduce blood pressure (BP) in people with resistant hypertension (RH) and uncontrolled hypertension (UH). While a large sham-controlled trial (SCT) showed similar outcomes of RD vs. sham control, in the recent trials, RD was effective in reducing BP in hypertensive people. We performed a meta-analysis of SCTs of RD vs. sham in hypertensive patients. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were searched since inception through September 2018 for SCTs that compared RD vs. sham. Change in 24-hour, daytime and nighttime ambulatory and office BP were efficacy outcomes. Various adverse events were safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 7 SCTs were included in the analysis. RD vs. sham significantly reduced 24-hour ambulatory SBP by 3.45 mmHg [95% CI (-5.01, -1.88); P < 0.0001] and DBP by 1.87 mmHg [(-3.59, -0.15); P = 0.01], office DBP by 2.97 mmHg [(-4.76, -1.18); P = 0.001] and daytime ambulatory SBP by 4.03 mmHg [(-6.37, -1.68); P = 0.0008] and DBP by 1.53 mmHg [(-2.69, -0.37); P = 0.01]. RD vs. sham caused non-significant reduction in office SBP by 3.99 mmHg [(-8.10, 0.11); P = 0.06] and nighttime ambulatory SBP by 3.05 mmHg [(-6.86, 0.75), P = 0.12] and DBP by 1.03 mmHg [(-3.01, 0.96); P = 0.31]. There was no difference in the risk of hypertensive crisis/emergency [0.62; 0.24-1.60; P = 0.33] between the two strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Current meta-analysis shows that RD reduces ambulatory BP and office DBP in patients with hypertension. Future trials with longer follow-up should confirm these findings.

Ischemic and bleeding outcomes of triple therapy in patients on chronic anticoagulation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Triple therapy (TT) that includes oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended in patients who are on chronic anticoagulation and undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness and safety of TT compared to double therapy (DT), which consists of an oral anticoagulation and one of the P2Y12 inhibitors, have shown increased risk of bleeding; however, none of the individual studies were powered to show a difference in ischemic outcomes. To compare the clinical outcomes of TT and DT, we performed this meta-analysis of RCTs. METHODS: Electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was performed for RCTs comparing TT and DT in patients who were on oral anticoagulation (Vitamin K antagonist or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant) who underwent PCI. All-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, stent thrombosis (ST) and TIMI major and minor bleeding were the major outcomes. RESULTS: An analysis of 5 trials including 10,592 total patients showed that TT, compared to DT, resulted in non-significant difference in risk of all-cause [odds ratio (OR); 1.14;95% confidence interval (CI):(0.80-1.63); P = 0.46) and cardiovascular mortality [1.43(0.58-3.36); P = 0.44], MI [0.88 (0.64-1.21); P = 0.42], stroke [1.10(0.75-1.62); P = 0.63] and ST [0.82(0.46-1.45); P = 0.49]. TT, compared to DT resulted in higher risk of TIMI major bleeding [1.61(1.09-2.37); P = 0.02], TIMI minor bleeding [1.85(1.23-2.79); P = 0.003] and TIMI major and minor bleeding [1.81 (1.38-2.38); P < 0.0001; I2 = 52%]. CONCLUSION: Compared to DT, the patients receiving TT are at a higher risk of major and minor bleeding with no survival benefit or impact on thrombotic outcomes.