Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on cardiac function, blood biochemistry and clinical efficacy in early ventricular remodeling after acute myocardial infarction.

Ventricular remodeling (VR) after acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is an important predictor for medium- and long-term prognosis. This study focuses on the relevant indexes of VR in patients with AMI, in which, the intervention effects of sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril were compared, guiding the clinical treatment. 58 patients with acute STEMI treated with PCI were divided into research group and control group. UCG was performed at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after MI, and the patients' indexes were collected to compare VR and adverse reactions in the two groups. The test results showed that there was no statistical difference in the baseline data of patients in the two groups, which were comparable. In the blood biochemical index examination, no statistical difference was found in cTnI and NT-proBNP between the two groups. At 1 week after operation, the levels of cTnI and NT-proBNP in research group were lower than those in the control group. In ECG examination, there was no statistical significance in the levels of LVEF, LVEDD and LVESD at admission between the two groups. After 1 week, the results of LVEF, LVEDD, LVESD in the research group were higher than those in the control group. The results of this study show that sacubitril/valsartan can be used in patients with AMI instead of enalapril. Sacubitril/valsartan improves cardiac function in patients with emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI, inhibits ventricular remodeling, and has a low incidence of adverse cardiac events and adverse drug reactions.

Efficacy and safety of visually guided laser balloon versus cryoballoon ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Newly developed catheter ablation (CA) techniques, such as laser balloon ablation (LBA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA), have been introduced in recent years and emerged as valuable alternatives to conventional radiofrequency CA strategies for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) patients. However, evidence comparing LBA and CBA remain controversial. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety between these two techniques. Methods: Scientific databases (PubMed, Embase) and relevant websites (the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov) were systematically searched from inception to March 2023. The primary outcomes of interest were the AF recurrence and the procedure-related complications. Secondary outcomes included procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and left atrial (LA) dwell time. Results: Seven clinical trials with a total of 637 patients were finally enrolled. No significant differences were found between LBA and CBA in terms of AF recurrence [16.3% vs. 22.7%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42-1.05, p = 0.078] or total procedural-related complications (8.4% vs. 6.4%, OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.71-2.51, p = 0.371). LBA had a significantly longer procedural time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 38.03 min, 95% CI: 13.48-62.58 min, p = 0.002] and LA dwell time (WMD = 46.67 min, 95% CI: 14.63-78.72 min, p = 0.004) than CBA, but tended to have shorter fluoroscopy time. Conclusions: LBA and CBA treatment have comparable efficacy and safety for PAF patients. LBA was associated with longer procedural and LA dwell times compared with CBA. Further large-scale studies are warranted to compare these two techniques with the newest generations.Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=426513, identifier (CRD42023426513).