Distal versus traditional radial access in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Distal radial access (DRA) is a well-tolerated and effective alternative to traditional radial access (TRA) for coronary procedures. However, the comparative value of these modalities remains unknown in the emergency setting, particularly in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). OBJECTIVE: To compare DRA versus TRA for emergency coronary procedures through a meta-analysis. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing DRA versus TRA in patients undergoing emergency coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). All statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included four studies comprising 543 patients undergoing emergency CAG or PCI, of whom 447 (82.3%) had STEMI. As compared with TRA, DRA was associated with lower radial artery occlusion rates (RR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.72) and shorter hemostasis time (MD, -4.23 h; 95% CI, -6.23 to 2.13). There was no significant difference between modalities in terms of puncture failure (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.31-6.19), crossover access (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.42-4.44), puncture time (SMD, 0.33; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.81), procedure time (MD, 0.97 min; 95% CI, -5.19 to 7.13), or rates of cannulation success (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83-1.06). In terms of other periprocedural complications, there were no differences between both groups. These findings remained consistent in a subgroup analysis of patients with STEMI. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, DRA was superior to TRA in terms of radial artery occlusion and hemostasis time, with similar rates of periprocedural complications.

Torsemide versus Furosemide in the Treatment of Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. / Torsemida em Comparação com Furosemida no Tratamento da Insuficiência Cardíaca: Uma Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise de Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados.

Furosemide is the most used diuretic for volume overload symptoms in patients with heart failure (HF). Recent data suggested that torsemide may be superior to furosemide in this setting. However, whether this translates into better clinical outcomes in this population remains unclear. To assess whether torsemide is superior to furosemide in the setting of HF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the efficacy of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with HF. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for eligible trials. Outcomes of interest were all-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations for HF (HHF), hospitalizations for all cardiovascular causes, all-cause mortality, and NYHA class improvement. Echocardiographic parameters were also assessed. We applied a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a 0.05 level of significance. 12 RCTs were included, comprising 4,115 patients. Torsemide significantly reduced HHF (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83; p=0.002; I2=0%), hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88; p=0.0009; I2=0%), and improved LVEF (MD 4.51%; 95% CI, 2.94 to 6.07; p<0.0001; I2=0%) compared with furosemide. There was no significant difference in all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.00; p=0.04; I2=0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.10; p=0.73; I2=0%), NYHA class improvement (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 0.92-1.68; p=0.15; I2=0%), or NYHA class change (MD -0.04; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.16; p=0.70; I2=15%) between groups. Torsemide significantly reduced hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular causes, also improving LVEF.

A furosemida é o diurético mais utilizado para o tratamento de sintomas de sobrecarga de volume em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. Dados recentes sugerem que a torsemida pode ser superior à furosemida neste contexto. No entanto, ainda não é claro se isso se traduz em melhores resultados clínicos nesta população. Avaliar se a torsemida é superior à furosemida no contexto da insuficiência cardíaca. Realizamos uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de estudos clínicos randomizados (ECRs) comparando a eficácia da torsemida em comparação com a furosemida em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. PubMed, Embase e Web of Science foram as bases de dados pesquisadas em busca de estudos elegíveis. Os desfechos de interesse foram internações por todas as causas, internações por insuficiência cardíaca (IIC), internações por todas as causas cardiovasculares, mortalidade por todas as causas, e melhoria de classe da NYHA. Parâmetros ecocardiográficos também foram avaliados. Foi aplicado um modelo de efeitos aleatórios para calcular as razões de risco (RR) e as diferenças médias (DM) com intervalos de confiança (IC) de 95% e nível de significância de 0,05. Foram incluídos 12 ECRs, envolvendo 4.115 pacientes. A torsemida reduziu significativamente a IIC (RR de 0,60; IC de 95%, 0,43-0,83; p=0,002; I2=0%), internação por causas cardiovasculares (RR de 0,72; IC de 95%, 0,60-0,88; p=0,0009; I2=0%), e melhora da fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo (FEVE) (DM de 4,51%; IC de 95%, 2,94 a 6,07; p<0,0001; I2=0%) em comparação com a furosemida. Não houve diferença significativa no número de internações por todas as causas (RR de 0,93; IC de 95%, 0,86-1,00; p=0,04; I2=0%), mortalidade por todas as causas (RR de 0,98; IC de 95%, 0,87-1,10; p=0,73; I2=0%), melhora da classe NYHA (RR de 1,25; IC de 95%, 0,92-1,68; p=0,15; I2=0%), ou mudança de classe NYHA (DM de -0,04; IC de 95%, -0,24 a 0,16; p=0,70; I2=15%) entre os grupos. A torsemida reduziu significativamente as internações por insuficiência cardíaca e causas cardiovasculares, melhorando também a FEVE.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains unsettled. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of catheter ablation (CA) and medical therapy compared to medical therapy alone in patients with AF and HFrEF. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CA with guideline-directed medical therapy for AF in patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤ 40%). We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for eligible trials. A random effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Six RCTs comprising 1055 patients were included, of whom 530 (50.2%) were randomized to CA. Compared with medical therapy, CA was associated with a significant reduction in heart failure (HF) hospitalization (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.45-0.72; P < .01), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.31-0.70; P < .01), all-cause mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36-0.78; P < .01), and AF burden (MD -29.8%; 95% CI -43.73% to -15.90%; P < .01). Also, there was a significant improvement in LVEF (MD 3.8%; 95% CI 1.6%-6.0%; P < .01) and quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire; MD -4.92 points; 95% CI -8.61 to -1.22 points; P < .01) in the ablation group. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with AF and HFrEF, CA was associated with a reduction in HF hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality as well as a significant improvement in LVEF and quality of life.

Long-term impact of home-based monitoring after an admission for acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Background: Patients with heart failure have high rehospitalisation rates and poor cardiovascular outcomes. Home-based monitoring (HBM) has emerged with promising results in different settings. However, its long-term effects on patients recently admitted for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) remain uncertain. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HBM with usual care (UC) that were published between database inception and June 24, 2023. We included studies with patients admitted for ADHF in the previous 6 months and with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. We excluded studies with patients hospitalised for reasons other than ADHF and studies with disproportional education interventions between arms. Statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.2. We pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs (RoB 2) was used to assess study quality. Publication bias was assessed via funnel plots and Egger's test, and heterogeneity was assessed through I2 statistics and sensitivity analysis. The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42023465359). Findings: We included 16 RCTs comprising 4629 patients, of whom 2393 (51.7%) were randomised to HBM and 3150 (68%) were men. Follow-up ranged from six to fifteen months. As compared with UC, HBM significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61, 0.91; p = 0.005), all-cause hospitalisations (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.70, 0.97; p = 0.018), cardiovascular (CV) mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36, 0.79; p = 0.002), hospitalisations for heart failure (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62, 0.91; p = 0.004), and CV hospitalisations (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.55, 0.95; p = 0.018). There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay (MD 0.97 days; 95% CI -0.90, 2.84; p = 0.308). Interpretation: In patients recently admitted with ADHF, HBM significantly reduces long-term all-cause mortality and hospitalisations, CV mortality and hospitalisations, and hospitalisations for heart failure, as compared with UC. This supports the implementation of HBM as a standard practice to optimise patient outcomes following admissions for ADHF. However, future studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of implementing HBM in the real-world setting. Funding: None.

Torsemida em Comparação com Furosemida no Tratamento da Insuficiência Cardíaca: Uma Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise de Ensaios Clínicos Randomizados / Torsemide versus Furosemide in the Treatment of Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Resumo A furosemida é o diurético mais utilizado para o tratamento de sintomas de sobrecarga de volume em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. Dados recentes sugerem que a torsemida pode ser superior à furosemida neste contexto. No entanto, ainda não é claro se isso se traduz em melhores resultados clínicos nesta população. Avaliar se a torsemida é superior à furosemida no contexto da insuficiência cardíaca. Realizamos uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de estudos clínicos randomizados (ECRs) comparando a eficácia da torsemida em comparação com a furosemida em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. PubMed, Embase e Web of Science foram as bases de dados pesquisadas em busca de estudos elegíveis. Os desfechos de interesse foram internações por todas as causas, internações por insuficiência cardíaca (IIC), internações por todas as causas cardiovasculares, mortalidade por todas as causas, e melhoria de classe da NYHA. Parâmetros ecocardiográficos também foram avaliados. Foi aplicado um modelo de efeitos aleatórios para calcular as razões de risco (RR) e as diferenças médias (DM) com intervalos de confiança (IC) de 95% e nível de significância de 0,05. Foram incluídos 12 ECRs, envolvendo 4.115 pacientes. A torsemida reduziu significativamente a IIC (RR de 0,60; IC de 95%, 0,43-0,83; p=0,002; I2=0%), internação por causas cardiovasculares (RR de 0,72; IC de 95%, 0,60-0,88; p=0,0009; I2=0%), e melhora da fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo (FEVE) (DM de 4,51%; IC de 95%, 2,94 a 6,07; p<0,0001; I2=0%) em comparação com a furosemida. Não houve diferença significativa no número de internações por todas as causas (RR de 0,93; IC de 95%, 0,86-1,00; p=0,04; I2=0%), mortalidade por todas as causas (RR de 0,98; IC de 95%, 0,87-1,10; p=0,73; I2=0%), melhora da classe NYHA (RR de 1,25; IC de 95%, 0,92-1,68; p=0,15; I2=0%), ou mudança de classe NYHA (DM de -0,04; IC de 95%, -0,24 a 0,16; p=0,70; I2=15%) entre os grupos. A torsemida reduziu significativamente as internações por insuficiência cardíaca e causas cardiovasculares, melhorando também a FEVE.

Abstract Furosemide is the most used diuretic for volume overload symptoms in patients with heart failure (HF). Recent data suggested that torsemide may be superior to furosemide in this setting. However, whether this translates into better clinical outcomes in this population remains unclear. To assess whether torsemide is superior to furosemide in the setting of HF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the efficacy of torsemide versus furosemide in patients with HF. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for eligible trials. Outcomes of interest were all-cause hospitalizations, hospitalizations for HF (HHF), hospitalizations for all cardiovascular causes, all-cause mortality, and NYHA class improvement. Echocardiographic parameters were also assessed. We applied a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a 0.05 level of significance. 12 RCTs were included, comprising 4,115 patients. Torsemide significantly reduced HHF (RR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83; p=0.002; I2=0%), hospitalization for cardiovascular causes (RR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88; p=0.0009; I2=0%), and improved LVEF (MD 4.51%; 95% CI, 2.94 to 6.07; p<0.0001; I2=0%) compared with furosemide. There was no significant difference in all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86-1.00; p=0.04; I2=0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.10; p=0.73; I2=0%), NYHA class improvement (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 0.92-1.68; p=0.15; I2=0%), or NYHA class change (MD -0.04; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.16; p=0.70; I2=15%) between groups. Torsemide significantly reduced hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular causes, also improving LVEF.