The efficacy of non-pharmacological and non-pacing therapies in preventing vasovagal syncope: Tilt training, physical counter pressure maneuvers, and yoga - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is a prevalent condition characterized by a sudden drop in blood pressure and heart rate, leading to a brief loss of consciousness and postural control. Recurrent episodes of VVS significantly impact the quality of life and are a common reason for emergency department visits. Non-pharmacological interventions, such as tilt training, physical counter pressure maneuvers, and yoga, have been proposed as potential treatments for VVS. However, their efficacy in preventing VVS remains uncertain. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to March 2023 for randomized controlled trials comparing non-pharmacological interventions with control in preventing VVS recurrence. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate of VVS episodes. RESULTS: A total of 1130 participants from 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall mean effect size for non-pharmacological interventions versus control was 0.245 (95 % CI: 0.128-0.471, p-value <0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that yoga had the largest effect size (odds ratio 0.068, 95 % CI: 0.018-0.250), while tilt training had the lowest effect size (odds ratio 0.402, 95 % CI: 0.171-0.946) compared to control. Physical counter pressure maneuvers demonstrated an odds ratio of 0.294 (95 % CI: 0.165-0.524) compared to control. CONCLUSION: Non-pharmacological interventions show promise in preventing recurrent VVS episodes. Yoga, physical counter pressure maneuvers, and tilt training can be considered as viable treatment options. Further research, including randomized studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches, is needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these interventions for VVS treatment.

Safety and Efficacy of Direct Oral Anticoagulant in Addition to Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis of 53,869 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Significant progress has been made in the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) during the past few decades. However, the role of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in post-ACS prophylactic therapy remains unknown. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of DOACs plus antiplatelet treatment (APT) after ACS. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials comparing DOACs plus APT with APT alone after ACS. The primary efficacy end points were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, and stroke and systemic embolization (SSE). The primary safety end point was major bleeding. The random-effects model was used to calculate relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% CIs. RESULTS: Nine trials with a total of 53,869 patients were identified, with 33,011 (61.2%) in the DOACs plus APT group and 20,858 (38.8%) in the APT alone group. The use of DOACs did not decrease the risk of cardiovascular death (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.01; P = 0.08; I2 = 0%) or myocardial infarction (RR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80-1.02; P = 0.10; I2 = 6%). However, the risk of SSE was significantly lower in patients who received DOACs plus APT compared with APT alone (RR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90; P = 0.008). Moreover, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the DOACs plus APT group (RR = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-98; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%). However, the risk of major bleeding was significantly higher in patients treated with DOACs plus APT compared with APT alone (RR = 2.53; 95% CI, 1.96-3.26; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%), as was the risk of nonmajor bleeding (RR = 2.27; 95% CI, 1.51-3.41; P < 0.01). IMPLICATIONS: DOACs plus APT for the prevention of left ventricular thrombus in patients with ACS were associated with a lower risk of SSE and all-cause mortality but increased the risk of major and nonmajor bleeding. The benefits and risks of this approach should be weighed based on a patient's individual clinical characteristics.