RESUMO
BACKGROUND: High-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation has emerged as an alternative to conventional standard-power long-duration (SPLD) ablation. We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of HPSD versus SPLD for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from PubMed, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were performed through August 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42023471797. RESULTS: We included six RCTs with a total of 694 patients. HPSD was significantly associated with a decreased total procedure time (MD: -22.88 with 95% CI [-36.13, -9.63], P = 0.0007), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) time (MD: -19.73 with 95% CI [-23.93, -15.53], P < 0.00001), radiofrequency time (MD: -10.53 with 95% CI [-12.87, -8.19], P < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference between HPSD and SPLD ablation with respect to the fluoroscopy time (MD: -0.69 with 95% CI [-2.00, 0.62], P = 0.30), the incidence of esophageal lesions (RR: 1.15 with 95% CI [0.43, 3.07], P = 0.77), and the incidence of first pass isolation (RR: 0.98 with 95% CI [0.88, 1.08], P = 0.65). CONCLUSION: HPSD ablation was significantly associated with decreased total procedure time, PVI time, and radiofrequency time compared with SPLD ablation. On the contrary, SPLD ablation was significantly associated with low maximum temperature.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Chronic constipation is a challenging functional gastrointestinal disorder that remains a global burden. Pharmacologic therapy, including laxatives and dietary fibers, are suggested as lines of treatment. Recent trials introduced an orally ingested vibrating capsule (VC) as an eligible option for chronic constipation management. METHODS: We conducted a literature search in English on electronic databases CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and WOS until February 27th, 2023. RevMan was used to perform the meta-analysis. The results were reported as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO with ID: (CRD42023409422). RESULTS: Three RCTs with a total of 601 patients were included in our analysis. There was no difference between the VC and placebo in responder rate (RR: 1.37 with 95% CI [0.82, 2.28], p = .22), CSBM change from baseline (MD: 0.21 with 95% CI [-0.26, 0.69], p = .38), SBM change from baseline (MD: 0.14 with 95% CI [-0.22, 0.49], p = .46), and the incidence of any adverse event (RR: 1.45 with a 95% CI of [0.79, 2.63], p = .23). However, VC was associated with increased vibration sensation (RR: 17.23, 95% CI [3.29, 90.20], p = .0008). CONCLUSIONS: VC was not effective to improve bowel movement in patients with functional constipation with no difference in response rate. However, evidence is still uncertain, with only three small RCTs that yielded heterogenous findings, mainly due to the different vibration protocols. Also, our findings suggest that VC is safe and well-tolerated, with no significant harmful effects observed. Therefore, more large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of VC in patients with functional constipation, determining the most effective dose, frequency, and duration of treatment.
