Comparison of radiofrequency ablation and antiarrhythmic drug for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antiarrhythmic drugs and radiofrequency ablation are first-line treatments of atrial fibrillation, however, there exists a paucity of data regarding the potential benefit of different catheter ablation technologies versus antiarrhythmic drugs as an early rhythm strategy. We performed a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: This review protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022375095). Additionally, this review will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols 2015 Statement. A computerized literature search will be performed in the following electronic databases from their inceptions to November 2022: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, Wanfang Data Information, and Weipu Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals. The risk of bias will be assessed independently by 2 authors using the Cochrane tool of risk of bias. All statistical analyses will be conducted using the software program Review Manager version 5.3. RESULTS: The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of the comparison of radiofrequency ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs for the treatment of atrial fibrillation.

Dobutamine Therapy is Associated with Worse Clinical Outcomes Compared with Nesiritide Therapy for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inotropes and natriuretic peptides are essential components of current therapeutic options for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). This systematic review examines the therapeutic effectiveness of dobutamine and brain natriuretic peptide, nesiritide, in reducing mortality and readmission rates for ADHF treatment. METHODS: Published studies related to dobutamine and nesiritide therapy in ADHF were identified via an exhaustive search of scientific literature databases. The identified studies, published between 2002 and 2012, were carefully screened based on our predefined inclusion criteria. Selected studies were pooled, and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome were calculated. Subgroup analysis was conducted to assess the influence of ethnicity on the study outcome. RESULTS: Seven cohort studies were selected for this meta-analysis. These seven studies included 959 ADHF patients who underwent nesiritide treatment and 1748 ADHF patients who received dobutamine therapy. Our meta-analysis revealed a significantly lower survival rate in dobutamine-treated patients compared with nesiritide-treated patients (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36-0.63, P < 0.001). Additionally, a markedly higher readmission rate was associated with dobutamine treatment compared with nesiritide treatment (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.73, P < 0.001). A stratified analysis based on ethnicity revealed a significantly lower survival in dobutamine-treated ADHF patients in Caucasian and mixed populations compared with nesiritide treatment (Caucasian: OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38-0.94, P = 0.024; Mixed: OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.56, P < 0.001). However, a similar association was not detected in Asian populations (P = 0.738). Further, dobutamine-treated ADHF patients displayed higher readmission rates than did nesiritide-treated patients in both Caucasian and mixed-race populations (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that dobutamine therapy is associated with poorer outcomes, with higher in-hospital mortality rates and increased readmission rates compared with nesiritide therapy in ADHF patients. Thus, current treatment strategies need to be redesigned for better outcomes.