Efficacy and outcomes of antiplatelet therapy versus oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Recent guidelines suggest that antiplatelet therapy (APT) is the standard of care in the absence of long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) indications in patients post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The superiority of one method over the other remains controversial. Materials and methods: Several databases, including MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, were electronically searched. The primary endpoint was the all-cause mortality (ACM) rate. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/TIA, haemorrhagic stroke, bleeding events, systemic embolism, and valve thrombosis in post-TAVR patients receiving APT and oral anticoagulants (OACs). Forest plots were generated using Review Manager version 5.4, with a p value less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Results: Twelve studies were selected. No significant differences were observed in APT and OAC group for ACM [risk ratio (RR): 0.67; 95% CI:0.45-1.01; P=0.05], cardiovascular death [RR:0.91; 95% CI:0.73-1.14; P=0.42], MI [RR:1.69; 95% CI:0.43-6.72; P=0.46], Stroke/TIA [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.58-1.06; P=0.12], ischaemic stroke [RR:0.83; 95% CI:0.50-1.37; P=0.47], haemorrhagic stroke [RR:1.08; 95% CI: 0.23-5.15; P=0.92], major bleeding [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.51-1.21; P=0.28], minor bleeding [RR:1.09; 95% CI: 0.80-1.47; P=0.58], life-threatening bleeding [RR:0.85; 95% CI:0.55-1.30; P=0.45], any bleeding [RR:0.98; 95% CI:0.83-1.15; P=0.78], and systemic embolism [RR:0.87; 95% CI:0.44-1.70; P=0.68]. The risk of valve thrombosis was higher in patients receiving APT than in those receiving OAC [RR:2.61; 95% CI:1.56-4.36; P =0.0002]. Conclusions: Although the risk of valve thrombosis increased in patients receiving APT, the risk of other endpoints was comparable between the two groups.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Right and Left Upper Extremity Access in Endovascular Aortic Repair for Patients with Thoracoabdominal and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Traditionally, left-sided upper extremity (LUE) access has been preferred in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) to manage aortic aneurysms and decrease the risk of cerebrovascular adverse events. Recently, right-sided upper extremity access (RUE) has gained popularity owing to its greater maneuverability and ergonomics. However, synthesized data comparing the safety and efficacy of RUE and LUE accesses are limited. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on various databases from inception to September 2023 to retrieve all studies that compared RUE and LUE access in EVAR. Data on stroke, 30-day mortality, technical success, access-site complications, total time required for fluoroscopy, and contrast agent requirement were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Forest plots were generated using a random-effects model on review manager by pooling the risk ratios (RRs) and standard mean differences (SMDs). Ten observational studies with a total of 3994 patients were included in our analysis with 1186 patients in the RUE and 2808 patients in the LUE access groups. EVAR using RUE access was associated with a significantly lower amount of contrast agent requirement than the LUE access group [SMD, -0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.45 to -0.02; P = 0.03]. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of the risk of stroke (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 0.81-3.22; P = 0.17), 30-day mortality (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.50-4.06; P = 0.51), rate of technical success (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95-1.01; P = 0.18), risk of access-site complications (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.72-1.39; P = 0.99), and total time required for fluoroscopy (SMD, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.39 to 0.26; P = 0.69). The use of RUE access in EVAR appears to be comparable to LUE access in terms of the risk of stroke, access-related complications, all-cause mortality, technical success rate, and fluoroscopy duration. The RUE group required a lower volume of contrast agent.

Comparison between the outcomes of transfemoral access and transfemoral access with adjunct upper extremity access in patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair: A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis.

Endovascular aortic repair is an emerging novel intervention for the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms. It is crucial to compare the effectiveness of different access sites, such as transfemoral access (TFA) and upper extremity access (UEA). An electronic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases. The primary endpoint was the incidence of stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), while the secondary endpoints included technical success, access-site complications, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), spinal cord ischemia, among others. Forest plots were constructed for the pooled analysis of data using the random-effects model in Review Manager, version 5.4. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Our findings in 9403 study participants (6228 in the TFA group and 3175 in the UEA group) indicate that TFA is associated with a lower risk of stroke/TIA [RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.40-0.75; p = 0.0002], MI [RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.38-0.69; p < 0.0001], spinal cord ischemia [RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.32-0.53, p < 0.00001], and shortens fluoroscopy time [SMD: -0.62; 95% CI: -1.00 to -0.24; p = 0.001]. Moreover, TFA required less contrast agent [SMD: -0.33; 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.06; p = 0.02], contributing to its appeal. However, no significant differences emerged in technical success [p = 0.23], 30-day mortality [p = 0.48], ICU stay duration [p = 0.09], or overall hospital stay length [p = 0.22]. Patients with TFA had a lower risk of stroke, MI, and spinal cord ischemia, shorter fluoroscopy time, and lower use of contrast agents. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm and strengthen these findings.

Efficacy and outcomes of Bempedoic acid versus placebo in patients with statin-intolerance: A pilot systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Bempedoic acid (BA) has shown significant progress in reducing cholesterol levels and is relatively free from the many side effects encountered with the use of other hyperlipidemic drugs such as statins. However, its efficacy in patients with statin intolerance is controversial with inconsistent results among studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed using various databases such as Medline, Google Scholar, and the International Registry of Clinical Trials. The primary endpoint was the change in LDL-C levels. The secondary endpoints included changes in HDL-C, non-HDL-C, triglycerides (TG), clinical outcomes such as MACE, all-cause mortality (ACM), cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and additional safety outcomes. The least-square mean (LSM) percent change for assessing changes in lipid parameter levels from the baseline and the risk ratio (RR) were used for the evaluation of binary endpoints, with statistical significance set at p<0.05. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for all the outcomes. RESULTS: Our analysis included 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 18,848 participants. BA showed a significant reduction in LDL-C [LSM difference in %: -25.24; 95 % CI: -30.79 to -19.69; p < 0.00001], total cholesterol [LSM difference in %:-21.28; 95 % CI:-30.58 to-11.98; p < 0.00001], non-HDL-C [LSM difference in %: -23.27; 95 % Cl: -29.80 to -16.73 p < 0.00001], and HDL-C [LSM difference in %:-3.37, 95 % CI:-3.73 to-3.01, p < 0.00001] compared to placebo. In terms of clinical efficacy, BA was associated with a lower risk of coronary revascularization [RR:0.81; 95 % CI:0.66 to 0.99; p = 0.04], hospitalization for unstable angina [RR:0.67; 95 % CI:0.50 to 0.88; p = 0.005], and myocardial infarction [RR:0.76; 95 % CI:0.66 to 0.88;p = 0.0004]. No significant difference was observed in MACE [RR:0.81; p = 0.15], ACM [RR:0.86; p = 0.46], cardiovascular-related mortality [RR:0.79; p = 0.44], and stroke [RR:0.83; p = 0.08] between the two groups. In terms of safety efficacy, the risk for myalgia was significantly lower in BA-treated patients than in placebo [RR:0.80; p = 0.0002], while the risk for gout [RR:1.46; p < 0.0001] and hyperuricemia [RR:1.93; p < 0.00001] was higher for BA than for placebo. The risks for other adverse effects, such as neurocognitive disorder, nasopharyngitis urinary tract infection, upper respiratory infection, muscular disorder, and worsening hyperglycemia/DM were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrated that BA significantly reduced the levels of LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, HDL-C, ApoB, and hs-CRP compared with the placebo group. Additionally, patients who received BA had a lower likelihood of coronary revascularization and hospitalization due to unstable angina, MI, and myalgia. Further large-scale RCTs are required to generate more robust evidence.