Efficacy of Intravenous Iron in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and Iron Deficiency: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provided a focused update to the 2021 Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure, now providing a 1A recommendation for intravenous iron in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and iron deficiency (ID). However, the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCT) are mixed. This systematic review of RCTs aims to provide an update and synthesize the evidence addressing the association of intravenous iron with patient-based outcomes in patients with HFrEF and ID. METHODS: Any RCT evaluating the effect of intravenous iron in patients with HFrEF and ID was eligible for inclusion. A complete search of the EMBASE and PubMed databases was conducted from inception until 15 September 2023. The primary outcome was the composite of the quality of life (QoL) questionnaires, while the secondary outcomes included first heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and all-cause mortality. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Of the 1035 references, 15 RCTs enrolling 6649 patients were included in this study. Intravenous iron was associated with significant improvement in the composite of QoL (standardized mean difference - 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.24 to - 0.48; p = 0.002), a significant reduction in first HF hospitalizations (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.95; p = 0.02), and with no change in all-cause mortality (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.03; p = 0.12). The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. CONCLUSION: Intravenous iron is possibly associated with improved QoL and reduced HF hospitalizations, without impacting all-cause mortality. These findings not only support the use of intravenous iron in patients with HFrEF but also emphasize the need for well-designed and executed RCTs with granular outcome reporting and powered sufficiently to address the impact of intravenous iron on mortality in patients with HFrEF and ID. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identifier number CRD42023389.

A systematic critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines of antithrombotic agents in gastrointestinal endoscopy using the AGREE II tool.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has not been systematically appraised. The goal of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of CPGs for the management of antithrombotic agents in periendoscopic period published within last 6 years. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases was performed to identify eligible CPGs published between January 1, 2016, and April 14, 2022, addressing the management of antithrombotic agents in the periendoscopic period. The quality of the CPG was independently assessed by six reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Domain scores were considered of sufficient quality when > 60% and of good quality when > 80%. RESULTS: The search yielded 343 citations, of which seven CPGs published by the gastroenterology associations in Asia (n = 3), Europe (n = 2), and North America (n = 2) were included for the critical appraisal. The overall median score for the AGREE II domains was 93% (interquartile range [IQR] 11%) for scope and purpose, 79% (IQR 61%) for stakeholder involvement, 79% (IQR 36%) for rigor of development, 100% (IQR 14%) for clarity of presentation, 32% (IQR 36%) for applicability, 93% (IQR 29%) for editorial independence, and 86% (IQR 29%) for overall assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that the overall methodological quality of the CPGs for the management of antithrombotic agents in the periendoscopic period varies across the domains. There is significant scope for improvement in the methodological rigor and applicability of CPGs.

Efficacy of Decision Aids in The Use of Left Ventricular Assist Device in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.

Although left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation can improve survival in patients with end-stage heart failure, it is not without risk. Numerous complications are possible, and durable support requires substantial lifestyle changes. The use of various knowledge-assessment tools may allow for more informed patient decisions. To synthesize the totality of the evidence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the efficacy of decision aid (DA) use in patients with advanced heart failure who are eligible for LVAD. Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the efficacy of DAs in patients considering LVAD was eligible for inclusion. A complete search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted from the start until June 8, 2023. The primary outcome was patients' LVAD knowledge. Data extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Of the 575 references, 2 RCTs randomizing 490 patients were included in this study. DAs were associated with no significant change in LVAD knowledge (standardized mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval -0.24 to 0.39, p = 0.64) or decisional conflict (mean difference -1.48, 95% confidence interval -5.28 to 2.32, p = 0.45). The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. The use of DAs in LVAD-eligible patients with advanced heart failure resulted in no difference in patients' knowledge of LVAD after LVAD education. The findings from this study will aid in the power analysis of a well-designed RCT to evaluate and encourage further investigation into the efficacy and relevance of DAs in preparing patients for a life with LVAD.

A Systematic Critical Appraisal of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Heart Failure Using the AGREE II Tool.

Multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for heart failure management have been published to provide the best practices regarding the use of foundational therapies to reduce morbidity and mortality in this patient population. However, a critical appraisal of these heart failure guidelines has not been performed. This systematic review aimed to assess the methodological quality of current CPGs in the management of patients with heart failure. A comprehensive search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted to identify CPGs published between January 1, 2021 and September 8, 2022. Any CPGs published in the last 2 years addressing the management of heart failure were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the CPGs was assessed using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluate II) instrument. The initial search yielded 3,269 citations, of which, 6 CPGs were included. A total of 2 CPGs were each published by the cardiology associations in North America and Asia and 1 each in Europe and South America. The overall median score for the AGREE II domains were 100% for scope and purpose, 71% for stakeholder involvement, 71% for the rigor of development, 100% for clarity of presentation, 43% for applicability, 100% for editorial independence, and 64% for overall assessment. CPG developers would benefit from the use of a standardized approach to the development of CPGs and use the contents of the AGREE II tool to improve the methodological rigor, reporting, and applicability of CPGs.