ABSTRACT
Objective@#Recent studies have raised concerns about the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the cardiovascular outcomes of sulfonylureas (SUs) versus DPP4 inhibitors in combination with metformin. @*Methods@#After searching for trials using combination therapy of metformin with an SU or DPP4 inhibitor in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, 1 prospective observational study and 15 randomized controlled studies were selected. @*Results@#Regarding the primary analysis endpoint, no significant differences were found in the risk of all-cause mortality between SUs and DPP4 inhibitors as add-on therapies to metformin (random-effect relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98–1.33;I2 =0%; p=0.097). Cardiovascular death was also similar between SUs and DPP4 inhibitors in the 5 studies that reported outcomes (random-effect RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.83–1.27; I2 =0%; p=0.817). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac events, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. However, the SU group showed a higher risk of ischemic stroke, more hypoglycemic events, and more weight gain than the DPP4 inhibitor group (ischemic stroke, random-effect RR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.06–7.30; I2 =51.9%; p=0.039; hypoglycemia, random-effect RR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.53–9.39; I2 =98.2; p=0.004; weight gain, weighted mean difference, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.07–2.29; I2 =94.7; p<0.001). @*Conclusion@#As add-on therapies to metformin, SUs and DPP4 inhibitors showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. However, some of the favorable results of DPP4 inhibitors suggest good safety and feasibility of the drugs.
ABSTRACT
Purpose@#We aimed to evaluate the influence of technological advances on ablation outcomes in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) (PeAF). Radiofrequency ablation for patients with AF has advanced, including contact force (CF)-sensing catheters and the ablation index (AI). @*Methods@#Between 2009 and 2018, we analyzed 173 patients with PeAF who underwent catheter ablation. We cat‑ egorized them into three groups: AF ablation without CF and AI information (no-CF group, n = 63), with CF without AI (CF-only group, n = 49), and with optimal AI-guided ablation (AI group, n = 61). Early (within 3 months, ER) and late (from 3 months to 1 year, LR) AF recurrence after ablation was assessed. Procedure-related complications were also evaluated. @*Results@#The baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 groups, excluding the baseline antiarrhythmic drug history. Additional substrate modification after pulmonary vein isolation was significantly low in frequency in the AI group (71.4%, no-CF; 69.4%, CF-only; 41.0%, AI, p = 0.001). The AI group had a shorter mean procedure-related time than the other groups. Both ER and LR of PeAF showed a trend of reduction with technological advances. With a short experience (less than 1 year), the CF-only group showed more ER and LR than that shown by the AI group. However, with a long experience (more than 1 year), ER and LR occurred similarly in the two groups. Procedure-related compli‑ cations improved with technological advances. @*Conclusion@#As ablation technology advanced, favorable clinical outcomes with short procedural times were observed. However, prospective, large multicenter studies are needed to verify these results.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#Recent studies have raised concern about the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors. We performed a systematic review through meta-analysis to compare cardiovascular outcomes of sulfonylurea (SU) versus DPP4 inhibitors when used in combination with metformin. @*Methods@#After searching for trials using combination therapy of metformin with DPP4 inhibitor or SU in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, one prospective observation study and 15 randomized controlled studies were selected. @*Results@#Regarding the primary analysis endpoint, there were no significant differences in the risk of all-cause mortality between SU and DPP4 inhibitors as an add-on therapy to metformin (random-effect relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98–1.33;p=0.811; I2 =0%). Cardiovascular death was also similar between the two drug classes in the five studies which reported outcomes (random-effect RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.83–1.27; p=0.517; I2 =0%). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and heart failure. However, there were less hypoglycemic events and weight gain in the DPP4 inhibitor group as compared with the SU group (random-effect RR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.53–9.39; p<0.001; I2 =98.2 and weighted mean difference, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.07–2.29; p<0.001; I2 =94.7, respectively). @*Conclusion@#As add-on therapy to metformin, there were no significant differences in allcause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between DPP4 inhibitors and SUs.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#Recent studies have raised concern about the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors. We performed a systematic review through meta-analysis to compare cardiovascular outcomes of sulfonylurea (SU) versus DPP4 inhibitors when used in combination with metformin. @*Methods@#After searching for trials using combination therapy of metformin with DPP4 inhibitor or SU in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, one prospective observation study and 15 randomized controlled studies were selected. @*Results@#Regarding the primary analysis endpoint, there were no significant differences in the risk of all-cause mortality between SU and DPP4 inhibitors as an add-on therapy to metformin (random-effect relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98–1.33;p=0.811; I2 =0%). Cardiovascular death was also similar between the two drug classes in the five studies which reported outcomes (random-effect RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.83–1.27; p=0.517; I2 =0%). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and heart failure. However, there were less hypoglycemic events and weight gain in the DPP4 inhibitor group as compared with the SU group (random-effect RR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.53–9.39; p<0.001; I2 =98.2 and weighted mean difference, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.07–2.29; p<0.001; I2 =94.7, respectively). @*Conclusion@#As add-on therapy to metformin, there were no significant differences in allcause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between DPP4 inhibitors and SUs.