ABSTRACT
Warfarin is the standard of care, and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a group of newer drugs to prevent stroke in patients with valvular heart disease. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in patients with valvular heart disease (VHD). The current meta-analysis was conducted using the standards developed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendation. The databases from the Cochrane library, PubMed, and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) were used to search for relevant articles without placing restrictions on the year of publication. Outcomes assessed in the current meta-analysis included a number of patients with stroke or systemic embolism, patients having myocardial infarction during the study period, patients with major bleeding events, and patients who died due to any reason. Overall, five studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Direct oral anticoagulants were associated with a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with VHD (relative risk (RR): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (C)I: 0.60 to 0.94). The risk of major bleeding events is 31% lower in patients receiving DOAC compared to patients receiving warfarin (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.83). No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. The current meta-analysis shows that DOACs were associated with a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism as compared to warfarin in patients with VHD. Besides this, the risk of major bleeding events was also lower in patients receiving DOACs compared to patients receiving warfarin. No significant differences were reported in terms of myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality between the two groups.
ABSTRACT
The role of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in enhancing long-term outcomes remains unknown. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of catheter ablation on stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalization due to heart failure, and major bleeding events in patients with atrial fibrillation. This meta-analysis was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The data search was carried out by two authors independently using online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library. The primary outcome was a stroke. The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and major bleeding events. Total, 10 articles were included in the current meta-analysis encompassing 275392 patients (33291 in the ablation group and 244974 in the non-ablation group). Among all included studies, one study was a randomized control trial, while the remaining other were retrospective cohorts. The current meta-analysis showed that catheter-based AF ablation reduced the risk of stroke (hazard ratio {HR}: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.49-0.77), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.51-0.71), and hospitalization for heart failure (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43-0.76). No significant differences were reported in terms of major bleeding events between patients who received catheter-based AF ablation and patients who did not receive catheter-based AF ablation (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.80-1.14). In the current meta-analysis, catheter-based AF ablation was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, and hospitalization due to heart failure. However, no significant difference was reported in terms of major bleeding events.
ABSTRACT
The beneficial impacts of various drugs on long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have been a matter of controversy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review randomized control trials (RCTs) involving patients with heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and identify the effects of various treatment options [angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone receptor blockers] on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization due to cardiovascular reasons. The current meta-analysis has been conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed without any restrictions on language by using the electronic databases Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed up to July 20, 2022. The outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization due to cardiovascular reasons. Overall, 10 articles were included in the current meta-analysis with a pooled sample size of 13,336 patients with HFpEF. In comparison to the placebo, among all four pharmacological agents, beta-blockers were the only agent that decreased the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. On the other hand, a significant reduction in hospitalization due to cardiac-related reasons was reported in patients on ACE inhibitors as compared to placebo. No other pharmacological agent had an impact on hospitalization due to cardiac-related reasons. The current meta-analysis indicates the possible benefits of beta-blockers in HFpEF in terms of reducing cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality.
ABSTRACT
Pneumonia is a pathological process of interstitial lung tissue and distal airway and alveolar infection and infiltration. SMART-COP (systolic blood pressure, multilobar infiltrates, albumin, respiratory rate, tachycardia, confusion, oxygen, and pH) is a severity score method designed to identify individuals who require intensive respiratory or vasopressor support (IRVS) support due to pneumonia. Therefore, it is important for management decisions in pneumonia. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine the performance of the SMART-COP score in predicting the prognosis and severity of patients presenting with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The current meta-analysis was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search was conducted using Medline, Embase, and CINAHL to identify relevant studies assessing the validity of the SMART-COP score in predicting the severity of patients with CAP. Overall, nine studies were included in the current meta-analysis. A pooled sensitivity of the SMART-COP score to predict the use of IRVS is 89% (95% CI: 84%-92%) while its specificity is 68% (95% CI: 65%-70%). The pooled sensitivity of the SMART-COP score to predict 30-day mortality is 92% (95% CI: 89%-94%) while its specificity is 39% (95% CI: 37%-42%). To summarize, SMART-COP is a new, eight-variable instrument that appears to accurately identify patients with CAP who will require IRVS and 30-day mortality. Our findings show that SMART-COP will be a valuable tool for clinicians in accurately predicting illness severity in CAP patients as compared to other scoring systems. SMART-COP can be useful to identify patients who need urgent management.
ABSTRACT
General anesthesia induction, tracheal intubation, extubation, and laryngoscopy are associated with specific hemodynamic changes. Tracheal intubation and laryngoscopy are related to sympathetic stimulation and lead to hypertension and tachycardia. Recent studies have shown that dexmedetomidine is safe and effective as it does not depress respiratory function. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl in preventing an increase in heart rate (HR) during intubation among patients undergoing general anesthesia. A systematic literature search was done using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase to assess studies comparing the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl in preventing an increase in HR during intubation. A meta-analysis was done utilizing a random-effects model, and mean differences of HR were determined between fentanyl and dexmedetomidine at baseline, one minute, five minutes, and 10 minutes of intubation. In this meta-analysis, eight randomized control trials were included, involving 548 patients (274 in the fentanyl group and 274 in the dexmedetomidine group). The findings showed that significant difference of HR was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than the fentanyl group at one minute of intubation (mean difference = -8.46; P-value = 0.003), at five minutes of intubation (mean difference = -7.51; P-value = 0.001), and at 10 minutes of intubation (mean difference = -5.15; P-value = 0.030). In the current meta-analysis, dexmedetomidine was better than fentanyl in preventing tachycardia following endotracheal intubation. HR was significantly lower at one minute, five minutes, and 10 minutes after intubation in the dexmedetomidine group compared to the fentanyl group.
