ABSTRACT
Background: The optimal electrodes position for elective direct current (DC) cardioversion of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains uncertain. Methods: An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases was performed through March 2022 for randomized trials that examined the outcomes of anterior-posterior (AP) versus anterior-lateral (AL) electrodes position during cardioversion of (AF). The main outcome was the success rate of cardioversion. Data were pooled using random effects model. Results: The final analysis included 10 RCTs with a total of 1677 patients. There was no difference in the rate of successful cardioversion between the AP versus AL groups (86.6 vs 87.9 %; RR 1.00; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06). Subgroup analysis by the shock waveform showed no significant interaction between monophasic and biphasic waveforms (Pintercation = 0.23). meta-regression analyses showed no effect modification of primary outcome according to body mass index (p = 0.15), left atrial diameter (p = 0.64), valvular heart disease (p = 0.34), lone AF (p = 0.58), or the duration of AF (p = 0.70). There was no significant difference between the AP and AL electrode position groups in successful cardioversion at low energy (RR 0.94; 95 % CI 0.74 to 1.19), the number of the delivered shocks (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.03; 95 % CI -0.32 to 0.26) or the mean energy of the delivered shocks (SMD -0.11 and 95 % CI -0.30 to 0.07). There was lower transthoracic impedance with AP versus AL electrode position (SMD -0.28; 95 %CI -0.47 to -0.10). Conclusion: Meta-analysis of randomized data showed no difference between AP and AL electrode positions in the success rate of DC cardioversion of AF. Either AP or AL electrode positions should be acceptable approaches for elective DC cardioversion of patients with AF.
Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Stenosis , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement , Anticoagulants , Aortic Valve/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Valve/surgery , Aortic Valve Stenosis/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Valve Stenosis/surgery , Fibrinolytic Agents , Humans , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Factors , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/adverse effects , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided approaches for nonculprit stenosis among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease. BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy to guide revascularization of nonculprit stenosis among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remains uncertain. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials evaluating the outcomes of culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization (CR), or FFR-guided CR. A pairwise meta-analysis comparing CR versus culprit-only revascularization and a network meta-analysis comparing the different revascularization techniques were conducted. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: The analysis included 11 trials with 8,195 patients. CR (ie, angiography-guided or FFR-guided CR) was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.59), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.98), recurrent myocardial infarction (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.95), and repeat ischemia-driven revascularization (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.35). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the incidence of MACE was lower with both angiography-guided CR (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.58) and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.78) compared with a culprit-only approach, while there was no difference in risk for MACE between angiography-guided and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, CR, with angiographic or FFR guidance for nonculprit stenosis, was associated with lower incidence of adverse events compared with culprit-only revascularization. FFR-guided CR was not superior to angiography-guided CR in reducing the incidence of adverse events. Future studies investigating other tools to risk-stratify nonculprit stenoses are encouraged.
