ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of aspirin and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in preventing thromboembolic events in patients with fractures. The present meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched EMBASE, PubMed, and EBSCO to find articles comparing aspirin and LMWH in patients with orthopedic trauma from inception to April 15, 2023. Limits were set to studies published in the English language only. Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included VTE and all-cause mortality. VTE can manifest as deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism. For safety analysis, rates of wound complication, infection, and bleeding complications were compared between the two study groups. A total of three studies were included in this meta-analysis enrolling 12884 patients. The study found no significant difference between the two groups in the risk of DVT and pulmonary embolism, and aspirin was non-inferior to LMWH for the prevention of all-cause mortality in patients. Additionally, no significant safety risk was associated with aspirin thromboprophylaxis. These findings suggest that inexpensive over-the-counter aspirin is as effective as LMWH in terms of safety and efficacy profile, making it a feasible option to consider in clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of meta-cognitive therapy (MCT) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). This study is reported according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A systematic electronic literature search was conducted on April 20, 2023, to find studies reporting on the efficacy of MCT for GAD. The search keywords included "Generalized anxiety disorders," "meta-cognitive therapy," "cognitive behavior therapy," and "randomized control trials.: The following databases were searched to find relevant articles: PubMed, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. Outcomes assessed in the present meta-analysis included the change in the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) from baseline to completion of treatment and after two years of follow-up. The PSWQ measures the trait of worry in adults. Worry is regarded as a dominant feature of GAD. Secondary outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included symptom severity using the Beck anxiety inventory (BAI). Change in BAI was scored from baseline to completion of treatment and after two years of follow-up. A total of three studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results show that patients treated with MCT had greater reductions in PSWQ and BAI scores post-treatment and after two years of treatment, as well as higher rates of recovery compared to those treated with CBT. These findings suggest that MCT is a promising approach for treating GAD and may have advantages over traditional CBT approaches.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in the management of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with structural heart diseases. Two independent investigators searched electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) using keyword combinations (Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free terms) such as "catheter ablation," "ventricular tachycardia," "escalation," and "antiarrhythmic drugs" from inception to November 30, 2022. The primary efficacy outcomes included recurrence of VT at follow-up, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. The secondary efficacy outcomes assessed in the current meta-analysis included implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and hospitalization due to cardiac reasons. Safety outcomes included treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events. A total of three studies were included in this meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence of VT (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.72-1.24, p-value: 0.67), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.67, 1.46, p-value: 0.98), cardiovascular mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-1.45, p-value: 0.67), incidence of ICD shocks (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.76-1.29, p-value: 0.93, I-square: 0%), and hospitalization due to cardiac reasons in follow-up (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55-1.07, p-value: 0.12) between the catheter ablation group and the antiarrhythmic drug group. However, the risk of treatment-related adverse events was lower in the ablation group compared to the antiarrhythmic medicine (AAM) group (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.67, p-value: 0.0001). In this meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among patients with structural heart disease who had ventricular tachycardia, the incidence of the recurrence of VT, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and ICD shock was not significantly different between patients who received catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs. However, regarding safety, catheter ablation is a safe procedure with a low risk of treatment-related events compared to antiarrhythmic drugs.
ABSTRACT
The role of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in enhancing long-term outcomes remains unknown. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of catheter ablation on stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalization due to heart failure, and major bleeding events in patients with atrial fibrillation. This meta-analysis was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The data search was carried out by two authors independently using online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library. The primary outcome was a stroke. The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and major bleeding events. Total, 10 articles were included in the current meta-analysis encompassing 275392 patients (33291 in the ablation group and 244974 in the non-ablation group). Among all included studies, one study was a randomized control trial, while the remaining other were retrospective cohorts. The current meta-analysis showed that catheter-based AF ablation reduced the risk of stroke (hazard ratio {HR}: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.49-0.77), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.51-0.71), and hospitalization for heart failure (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43-0.76). No significant differences were reported in terms of major bleeding events between patients who received catheter-based AF ablation and patients who did not receive catheter-based AF ablation (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.80-1.14). In the current meta-analysis, catheter-based AF ablation was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, and hospitalization due to heart failure. However, no significant difference was reported in terms of major bleeding events.
ABSTRACT
Acute gastroenteritis is one of the common diseases of childhood. Dehydration is the most frequent consequence of acute gastroenteritis, and vomiting is the most distressing clinical manifestation. Various anti-emetic agents are used in practice to control vomiting. However, not all anti-emetic agents are safe and effective. This meta-analysis aims to compare the effectiveness of ondansetron and domperidone in the cessation of vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis. The current meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search strategy was developed to identify prospective studies that compared the effectiveness of ondansetron and domperidone in the cessation of vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis. The primary outcome was the number of children in whom there was a cessation of vomiting. The secondary outcomes included a number of children who required an additional dose of the assigned anti-emetic and the number of children who required intravenous rehydration therapy. Overall, seven randomized trials were included in the current meta-analysis. The pooled sample size of enrolled patients was 1,262, of which 639 patients were randomized to the ondansetron group and 623 were randomized to the domperidone group. In the ondansetron group, a higher number of children experienced cessation of vomiting (risk ratio [RR]: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.08-1.37, p-value=0.002), a lower proportion of children needed an additional dose of the assigned anti-emetic (RR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77, p-value=0.002), and a lower number of children received intravenous rehydration (RR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16-0.83, p-value=0.02) as compared to domperidone group. Compared to domperidone, ondansetron was found to have better efficiency in aiming cessation of vomiting in children with gastroenteritis.
ABSTRACT
The beneficial impacts of various drugs on long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have been a matter of controversy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review randomized control trials (RCTs) involving patients with heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and identify the effects of various treatment options [angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone receptor blockers] on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization due to cardiovascular reasons. The current meta-analysis has been conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed without any restrictions on language by using the electronic databases Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed up to July 20, 2022. The outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization due to cardiovascular reasons. Overall, 10 articles were included in the current meta-analysis with a pooled sample size of 13,336 patients with HFpEF. In comparison to the placebo, among all four pharmacological agents, beta-blockers were the only agent that decreased the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. On the other hand, a significant reduction in hospitalization due to cardiac-related reasons was reported in patients on ACE inhibitors as compared to placebo. No other pharmacological agent had an impact on hospitalization due to cardiac-related reasons. The current meta-analysis indicates the possible benefits of beta-blockers in HFpEF in terms of reducing cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality.
