Effect of hormone therapy on blood pressure and hypertension in postmenopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Menopausal hormone therapy (HT) includes a wide variety of hormonal compounds, and its effect on blood pressure is still uncertain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess evidence regarding the effect of HT on blood pressure in postmenopausal women and its association with arterial hypertension. EVIDENCE REVIEW: This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and the incidence of hypertension were assessed. All stages were independently performed by two reviewers. For blood pressure outcome, standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated as effect measures. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. The results are presented based on the HT type. The incidence of hypertension was compared using descriptive analyses. FINDINGS: Eleven studies were included with 81,041 women evaluated, of which 29,812 used HT. The meta-analysis, conducted with 8 studies and 1,718 women, showed an increase in SBP with the use of oral conjugated equine estrogens plus progestogen (SMD = 0.60 mm Hg, 95% CI = 0.19 to 1.01). However, oral or transdermal use of estradiol plus progestogen (SMD = -2.00 mm Hg, 95% CI = -7.26 to 3.27), estradiol alone, and tibolone did not show any significant effect. No significant effect on DBP was observed for any formulation. Women who used oral estrogen plus progestogen had a higher risk of incident hypertension than those who never used it. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The effect of HT on blood pressure is influenced by the formulation used, especially the type of estrogen. The combined formulations of conjugated equine estrogens plus progestogen increased SBP and the risk of hypertension, which was not observed among estradiol plus progestogen, estradiol alone, and tibolone users.

Conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a promising alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and ventricular dyssynchrony, but its benefits are uncertain. In this study, we aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of CSP vs BVP for cardiac resynchronization in patients with HFrEF. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing CSP to BVP for resynchronization therapy in patients with HFrEF. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. A random-effects model was used for all outcomes. We included 7 randomized controlled trials with 408 patients, of whom 200 (49%) underwent CSP. Compared to BVP, CSP resulted in a significantly greater reduction in QRS duration (MD -13.34 ms; 95% confidence interval [CI] -24.32 to -2.36, P = .02; I2 = 91%) and New York Heart Association functional class (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.37; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.05; P = .02; I2 = 41%), and a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (mean difference [MD] 2.06%; 95% CI 0.16 to 3.97; P = .03; I2 = 0%). No statistical difference was noted for left ventricular end-systolic volume (SMD -0.51 mL; 95% CI -1.26 to 0.24; P = .18; I2 = 83%), lead capture threshold (MD -0.08 V; 95% CI -0.42 to 0.27; P = .66; I2 = 66%), and procedure time (MD 5.99 minutes; 95% CI -15.91 to 27.89; P = .59; I2 = 79%). These findings suggest that CSP may have electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and symptomatic benefits over BVP for patients with HFrEF requiring cardiac resynchronization.

Conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a promising alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and ventricular dyssynchrony, but its benefits are still uncertain. In this study, we aim to evaluate clinical outcomes of CSP versus BVP for cardiac resynchronization in patients with HFrEF. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CSP to BVP for resynchronization therapy in patients with HFrEF. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. A random-effects model was used for all outcomes. We included 7 RCTs with 408 patients, of whom 200 (49%) underwent CSP. Compared to biventricular pacing, CSP resulted in a significantly greater reduction in QRS duration (MD -13.34 ms; 95% CI -24.32 to -2.36, p=0.02; I2=91%) and NYHA functional class (SMD -0.37; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.05;p=0.02; I2=41%), and a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD 2.06%; 95% CI 0.16 to 3.97; p=0.03; I2=0%). No statistical difference was noted for LVESV (SMD -0.51 mL; 95% CI -1.26 to 0.24; p=0.18; I2=83%), lead capture threshold (MD -0.08 V; 95% CI -0.42 to 0.27; p=0.66; I2=66%), and procedure time (MD 5.99 min; 95% CI -15.91 to 27.89; p=0.59; I2=79%). These findings suggest that CSP may have electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and symptomatic benefits over biventricular pacing for patients with HFrEF requiring cardiac resynchronization.