ABSTRACT
Aims: The atrioventricular block (AVB) is a conduction system problem that results from the impairment in the transmission of an impulse from the atria to the ventricle, the disease has many etiologies. This article aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dual and single-chamber pacemakers in patients with SSS and AVB. Methods: An electronic search of PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and Google Scholar was performed from 2000 till August 15th, 2022. Retrieved articles were exported to Endnote Reference Library Software, where duplicate studies were removed from the list, and only articles meeting the eligibility criteria of this study were selected. RevMan 5.4 and STATA 16 software were used for the analysis. The modified Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias and New-castle Ottawa scale were used for quality assessment of RCTs and observational studies respectively. Results: This study is composed of 8953 patients with sick-sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block. A total of thirteen outcomes are included in this meta-analysis, out of which atrial fibrillation significantly favored dual chamber [OR = 1.29; 95 % CI = 1.05-1.59; P = 0.01 I2 = 29 %] and overall complications [OR = 0.48; 95 % CI = 0.29-0.77; p = 0.03 I2 = 0 %] and pneumothorax [OR = 0.31; 95 % CI = 0.10-0.93; p = 0.04, I2 = 0 %] were satisfied by single-chamber pacing. Conclusion: This study concluded that neither single-chamber nor dual-chamber pacemakers are superior to each other, but they are unique in their own ways as the results of this study manifest remarkable reduction in atrial fibrillation rates and pneumothorax using dual-chamber and single-chamber pacemakers respectively.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a pathophysiological condition where decreased cardiac output is observed subsequent to any structural deformity or cessation of normal function. Thiamine deficiency is one of the risk factors responsible for causing HF; other risk factors include hypertension, smoking, and obesity. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to scrutinize whether the heart failure patients would benefit from thiamine supplementation or not when compared to placebo. METHODS: We selected only those double-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which included participants presenting with symptomatic heart failure. We excluded all the articles published in languages other than English Language. Furthermore, all the studies other than RCTs were also omitted. Articles yielded from the electronic search were exported to EndNote Reference Library software to remove any duplicates. Analyses were done using the Review manager 5.4 tool. Mean values and standard deviations were retrieved for the continuous outcomes given as raw data. RESULTS: The 6 RCTs selected for the statistical analysis consisted of 298 participants (158 in the intervention group, 140 in the placebo group). The outcomes resulted to be non-significant with LVEF p-value= 0.08, NT-pro BNP p-value= 0.94, LVEDV p-value= 0.53, 6MWT p-value=0.59, mortality p-value= 0.61, hospitalization p-value= 0.53 and dyspnea p-value= 0.77. Heart rate is the only significant outcome with a p-value=0.04. CONCLUSION: To conclude, except for heart rate, thiamine supplementation had no effect on the outcomes of heart failure patients.
