Pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Chagas disease-related cardiomyopathy is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Latin America. Despite the substantial burden to the healthcare system, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in people with Chagas disease. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefits and harms of current pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in people with Chagas cardiomyopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid; 1946 to to February Week 1 2016), EMBASE (Ovid; 1947 to 2016 Week 07), LILACS (1982 to 15 February 2016), and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters; 1970 to 15 February 2016). We checked the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the effects of pharmacological interventions to treat heart failure in adult patients (18 years or older) with symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association classes II to IV), regardless of the left ventricular ejection fraction stage (reduced or preserved), with Chagas cardiomyopathy. We did not apply limits to the length of follow-up. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality at 30 days, time-to-heart decompensation, disease-free period (at 30, 60, and 90 days), and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We estimated relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We used a fixed-effect model to synthesize the findings. We contacted authors for additional data. We developed 'Summary of findings' (SoF) tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we identified one new trial. Therefore, this version includes three trials (108 participants). Two trials compared carvedilol against placebo and another assessed rosuvastatin versus placebo. All trials had a high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of two trials showed a lower proportion of all-cause mortality in the carvedilol groups compared with the placebo groups (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88, I² = 0%; 69 participants; very low-quality evidence). Neither of the trials reported on cardiovascular mortality, time-to-heart decompensation, or disease-free periods.One trial (30 participants) found no difference in hospital readmissions (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.31 to 3.28; very low-quality of evidence) or reported adverse events (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.27; very low-quality of evidence) between the carvedilol and placebo groups.There was very low-quality evidence from two trials of inconclusive effects on quality of life (QoL) between the carvedilol and placebo groups. One trial (30 participants) assessed QoL with the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (21 items; item scores range from 0 to 5; a lower MLHFQ score is better). The MD was -14.74; 95% CI -24.75 to -4.73. The other trial (39 participants) measured QoL with the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36; item scores range from 0 to 100; higher SF-36 score is better). Data were not provided.One trial (39 participants) assessed the effect of rosuvastatin versus placebo. The trial did not report on any primary outcomes or adverse events. There was very low-quality evidence of uncertain effects on QoL (no data were provided). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This first update of our review found very low-quality evidence for the effects of either carvedilol or rosuvastatin, compared with placebo, for treating heart failure in people with Chagas disease. The three included trials were underpowered and had a high risk of bias. There were no conclusive data to support or reject the use of either carvedilol or rosuvastatin for treating Chagas cardiomyopathy. Unless randomised clinical trials provide evidence of a treatment effect, and the trade-off between potential benefits and harms is established, policy-makers, clinicians, and academics should be cautious when recommending or administering either carvedilol or rosuvastatin to treat heart failure in people with Chagas disease. The efficacy and safety of other pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in people with Chagas disease remains unknown.

Aspiration thrombectomy prior to percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trials of aspiration thrombectomy (AT) prior to primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) have shown apparently inconsistent results and therefore generated uncertainty and controversy. To summarize the effects of AT prior to PCI versus conventional PCI in STEMI patients. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL to June 2015 and review of reference lists of previous reviews. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AT prior to PCI with conventional PCI alone. Pairs of reviewers independently screened eligible articles; extracted data; and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Among 73 potential articles identified, 20 trials including 21,660 patients were eligible; data were complete for 20,866 patients. Moderate-certainty evidence suggested a non statistically significant decrease in overall mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95 % confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.01, risk difference (RD) 4/1,000 over 6 months), no impact on recurrent MI (RR 0.94, 95 % CI, 0.79 to 1.12) or major bleeding (RR 1.02, 95 % CI, 0.78 to 1.35), and an increase in stroke (RR 1.56, 95 % CI, 1.09 to 2.24, RD 3/1,000 over 6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence suggests aspiration thrombectomy is associated with a possible small decrease in mortality (4 less deaths/1000 over 6 months) and a small increase in stroke (3 more strokes/1000 over 6 months). Because absolute effects are very small and closely balanced, thrombectomy prior to primary PCI should not be used as a routine strategy.

Pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with chagas cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Chagas disease-related cardiomyopathy is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Latin America. Despite the substantial burden to the healthcare system, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of current pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) Issue 1, 2011, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), LILACS and ISI Web of Science to April 2011. We checked the reference lists of included papers. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in adult patients (≥18 years) with symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association class II to IV), irrespective of the left ventricular ejection fraction stage, reduced or preserved, with Chagas cardiomyopathy. No limits were applied with respect to the follow-up duration. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality at 30 days, time to heart decompensation and disease-free period (at 30, 60 and 90 days), and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We estimated relative risks (RR) and the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We used a fixed-effect model to synthesize the findings. We contacted authors for additional data. MAIN RESULTS: We included two randomized clinical trials involving 69 participants. Both trials compared carvedilol against placebo, and had a high risk of bias. Carvedilol compared with placebo did not significantly affect all-cause mortality (2/34 (5.88%) versus 3/35 (5.87%); pooled RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88, I(2) = 0%). None of the trials reported on cardiovascular mortality, time to heart decompensation or disease-free period. Evidence on the adverse effects of carvedilol is inconclusive. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane review has found a lack of evidence on the effects of carvedilol for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas disease. The two included trials were underpowered and had a high risk of bias. There are no conclusive data to support the use of carvedilol for treating Chagas cardiomyopathy. Unless randomized clinical trials provide evidence of a treatment effect, and the trade off between potential benefits and harms is established, policy-makers, clinicians, and academics should be cautious when recommending and administering carvedilol for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas disease. The efficacy and safety of other pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas disease is unknown.

Factor Xa inhibitors for acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The activation of coagulation mechanisms plays a central role in the pathogenesis of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Administration of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH), agents preventing the progression of thrombus formation, is a crucial therapeutic strategy. However, some limitations related to their use have recently stimulated the development of new synthetic agents. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of factor Xa inhibitors for treatment of ACS compared to UFH or LMWH. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) of the Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008), PubMed, EMBASE and LILACS as well as the publications from International Congresses and the reference lists of the selected studies in December 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: We used randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing factor Xa inhibitors to UFH or LMWH during the course of ACS. Outcome measures included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, re-infarction, ischemia recurrence, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The selection, quality assessment and data extraction of the included trials were done independently by two authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data were analysed by the use of risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) were reported as needed. MAIN RESULTS: A total of four RCTs involving 27,976 subjects were included. Fondaparinux was the only factor Xa inhibitor identified in our included RCTs. Fondaparinux appeared to be related to a lower risk in all-cause mortality at 90 to 180 days (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97), especially in the group where enoxaparin (a LMWH) was the control drug. Fondaparinux was also associated with a lower risk in major and minor bleeding at 30 days compared to enoxaparin (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43, respectively), but not when compared to UFHs (RR 1.41; 95% CI 0.49 to 4.10; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.39 respectively). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic efficacy of factor Xa inhibitors in ACS seemed to be related to a reduced risk in all-cause mortality at 90 to 180 days, with a better safety profile than enoxaparin in terms of reduce incidence of major and minor bleeding.