The added value of hypertonic saline solution to furosemide monotherapy in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

We assessed the effects of hypertonic saline solution (HSS) plus furosemide versus furosemide alone in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We searched four electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) until June 30, 2022. The quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed using the GRADE approach. All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was also conducted for intermediate and biomarker outcomes. Ten RCTs involving 3013 patients were included. HSS plus furosemide significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD]: -3.60 days; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.56 to -2.64; QoE: moderate), weight (MD: -2.34 kg; 95% CI: -3.15 to -1.53; QoE: moderate), serum creatinine (MD: -0.41 mg/dL; 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.33; QoE: low), and type-B natriuretic peptide (MD: -124.26 pg/mL; 95% CI: -207.97 to -40.54; QoE: low) compared to furosemide alone. HSS plus furosemide significantly increased urine output (MD: 528.57 mL/24 h; 95% CI: 431.90 to 625.23; QoE: moderate), serum Na+ (MD: 6.80 mmol/L; 95% CI: 4.92 to 8.69; QoE: low), and urine Na+ (MD: 54.85 mmol/24 h; 95% CI: 46.31 to 63.38; QoE: moderate) compared to furosemide alone. TSA confirmed the benefit of HSS plus furosemide. Due to the heterogeneity in mortality and heart failure readmission, meta-analysis was not performed. Our study shows that HSS plus furosemide, compared to furosemide alone, improved surrogated outcomes in ADHF patients with low or intermediate QoE. Adequately powered RCTs are still needed to assess the benefit on heart failure readmission and mortality.

Use of adaptive servo ventilation therapy as treatment of sleep-disordered breathing and heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Adaptive servoventilation (ASV) has been reported to show improvement in patients with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and heart failure (HF); however, its role as a second-line or adjunctive treatment is not clear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of new existing data including cardiac mechanistic factor, geometry, and cardiac biomarkers. METHODS: We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that assessed the efficacy or effectiveness of ASV compared to conventional treatments for SDB and HF in five research databases from their inception to November 2018. Random-effects meta-analyses using the inverse variance method and stratified by study design were performed. RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (n = 859) and 5 cohorts (n = 162) that met our inclusion criteria. ASV significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in cohorts (MD 6.96%, 95% CI 2.58, 11.34, p = 0.002), but not in RCTs. Also, the ASV group had significantly lower apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in both cohorts (MD - 26.02, 95% CI - 36.94, - 15.10, p < 0.00001) and RCTs (MD - 21.83, 95% CI - 28.17, - 15.49, p < 0.00001). ASV did not significantly decrease the E/e' ratio in RCTs or in cohorts. Finally, ASV significantly decreased brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) in the cohorts (SMD - 121.99, CI 95% - 186.47, - 57.51, p = 0.0002) but not in RCTs. ASV did not have a significant effect on systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and cardiac diameters. CONCLUSIONS: ASV therapy is associated with improvements of AHI in comparison to alternative treatments in patients with SDB and HF. ASV did not improve LVEF or E/e' ratios in randomized trials; other intermediate outcomes did not improve significantly.