Sex-based differences in safety and efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Studies have identified significant sex-based differences and disparities in the clinical presentation and treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Studies have shown women are less likely to be referred for catheter ablation, are older at the time of ablation, and are more likely to have recurrence after ablation. However, in most studies investigating AF ablation outcomes, the female cohorts were relatively small. The impact of sex on the outcome and safety of ablation procedures is still unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate sex-based differences in outcomes and complications after AF catheter ablation, with a significant female cohort METHOD: In this retrospective study, patients undergoing AF ablation from January 1, 2014, to March 31, 2021, were included. We investigated clinical characteristics, duration and progression of AF, number of EP appointments from diagnosis to ablation, procedural data, and procedure complications. RESULTS: Total of 1346 patients underwent first catheter ablation for AF during this period, including 896 (66.5%) male and 450 (33.4%) female patients. Female patients were older at the time of ablation (66.2 vs. 62.4 years; p < .001). Women had higher CHA2 DS2 -VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, stroke, vascular disease, sex category) scores (3 vs. 2; p < .001) than men, expectedly, as the female sex warrants an additional point. 25.3% female patients had PersAF at the time of diagnosis versus 35.3% male patients (p < .001). At the time of ablation, 31.8% female patients had PersAF as compared to 43.1% male patients (p < .001), indicating progression of PAF to PersAF in both sexes. Women tried more AADs than men before ablation (1.13 vs. 0.98; p = .002). Male and female patients had no statistically significant difference in (a) arrhythmia recurrence at 1-year post ablation (27.7% vs. 30%; p = .38) or (b) procedural complication rate (1.8% vs. 3.1%; p = .56). CONCLUSION: Female patients were older and had higher CHA2 DS2 -VASc scores compared to males at the time of AF ablation. Women tried more AADs than men before ablation. One-year arrhythmia recurrence rates and procedural complications were similar in both sexes. No sex-based differences were observed in safety and efficacy of ablation.

Assessing vaccine hesitancy in Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks have increased in past years, and there is great public health interest in monitoring attitudes towards vaccination as well as identifying factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy and refusal. Although the WHO declared vaccine hesitancy as one of the top threats to global health in 2019, studies focused on the determinants and extent of vaccine hesitancy in Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are lacking. This scoping review explores the various factors surrounding vaccine hesitancy, including but not limited to geographic, cultural and religious factors, and examines the extent and nature of the existing evidence on this topic. In light of current development of various COVID-19 vaccines, our work seeks to elucidate the barriers to vaccine uptake in specific populations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will be conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Scoping Reviews. It will comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Studies published in English, Arabic and French between January 1998 and December 2020 will be drawn from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus. The search strategy will include terms related to vaccination and vaccine hesitancy in Arab countries in the MENA region. We will also include grey literature on the topic by searching Google and Google Scholar. Studies will be selected according to the Participants-Intervention-Comparators-Outcome model, and all study titles and abstracts will be screened by two reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved with a third reviewer's input. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review is exempted from ethical approval and will be published in a peer-reviewed open-access journal to ensure wide dissemination.