Early Initiation of PCSK9 Inhibitor Therapy Versus Placebo in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

In patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9is) have shown a 50% to 60% reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from baseline when added to high-intensity statin therapy. However, less is known about the impact of PCSK9is in the setting of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing PCSK9is with placebo in the setting of ACS added to guideline-directed high-intensity or maximally tolerated statin therapy. We included randomized controlled trials with initiation of a PCSK9i or placebo within 1 week of presentation or percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central were searched. This study followed the Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations. A total of 6 randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 996 patients, of whom 503 (50.5%) received PCSK9is. The mean follow-up ranged from 4 to 52 weeks. The LDL-C (mean difference [MD] -44.0 mg/100 ml, CI -54.3 to -33.8, p <0.001) and lipoprotein (a) levels (MD -24.0 nmol/L, confidence interval [CI] -43.0 to -4.9, p = 0.01) were significantly lower at follow-up with PCSK9is. Similarly, the total cholesterol (MD -49.2 mg/100 ml, CI -59.0 to -39.3), triglycerides (MD -19.0 mg/100 ml, CI -29.9 to -8.2), and apolipoprotein B (MD -33.3 mg/100 ml, CI -44.4 to -22.1) were significantly reduced with PCSK9is. In conclusion, in patients with ACS, early initiation of PCSK9i added to statin significantly reduces LDL-C and lipoprotein (a) levels compared with placebo. Whether the differences in these atherogenic lipoproteins translate into a reduction in clinical end points is yet to be determined.

Catheter Ablation is Superior to Antiarrhythmic Drugs as First-Line Treatment for Atrial Fibrillation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. / Ablação por Cateter é Superior a Drogas Antiarrítmicas como Tratamento de primeira linha para Fibrilação Atrial: uma Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is a well-established therapy for rhythm control in patients who are refractory or intolerant to anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD). Less is known about the efficacy of catheter ablation compared with AAD as a first-line strategy for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of catheter ablation vs. AAD in patients naïve to prior rhythm control therapies. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared catheter ablation to AAD for initial rhythm control in symptomatic AF and reported the outcomes of (1) recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs); (2) symptomatic AF; (3) hospitalizations; and (4) symptomatic bradycardia. Heterogeneity was examined with I2statistics. P values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We included five trials with 994 patients, of whom 502 (50.5%) underwent catheter ablation. Mean follow-up ranged from one to five years. Recurrences of AT (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25-0.52; p<0.001) and symptomatic AF (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.18-0.57; p<0.001), and hospitalizations (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.15-0.42; p<0.001) were significantly less frequent in patients treated with catheter ablation compared with AAD. Symptomatic bradycardia was not significantly different between groups (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.65; p=0.28). Significant pericardial effusions or tamponade occurred in eight of 464 (1.7%) patients in the catheter ablation group. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that catheter ablation has superior efficacy to AAD as an initial rhythm control strategy in patients with symptomatic AF.

FUNDAMENTO: A ablação por cateter é uma terapia bem estabelecida para controle do ritmo cardíaco em pacientes refratários ou intolerantes a drogas antiarrítmicas (DAA). Porém, a eficácia desse procedimento comparada à de DAA como estratégia de primeira linha no controle do ritmo cardíaco na fibrilação atrial é menos conhecida. OBJETIVOS: Conduzir uma revisão sistemática e metanálise da ablação por cateter vs. DAA em pacientes sem nenhum tratamento prévio para controle do ritmo. MÉTODOS: Buscamos, nos bancos de dados do PubMed, EMBASE, e Cochrane, ensaios randomizados controlados que compararam ablação por cateter com DAA para controle do ritmo cardíaco em pacientes com FA sintomática e descreveram os seguintes desfechos: (1) recorrência de taquiarritmia atrial (TA); (2) FA sintomática; (3) internações hospitalares; e (4) bradicardia sintomática. A heterogeneidade foi avaliada por estatística I2. Valores de p menores que 0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significativos. RESULTADOS: Incluímos cinco ensaios com 994 pacientes, dos quais 502 (50,5%) foram submetidos à ablação por cateter. O período médio de acompanhamento foi de um a cinco anos. Recorrências de TA (OR 0,36; IC95% 0,25-0,52; p<0,001) e de FA sintomática (OR 0,32; IC95% 0,18-0,57; p<0,001), e internações hospitalares (OR 0,25; IC95% 0,15-0,42; p<0,001) foram menos frequentes nos pacientes tratados com ablação por cateter que naqueles tratados com DAA. Bradicardia sintomática não foi diferente entre os grupos (OR 0,55; IC95% 0,18-1,65; p=0,28). Derrame ou tamponamento pericárdico significativo ocorreu em oito dos 464 (1,7%) pacientes no grupo submetido à ablação. CONCLUSÃO: Esses achados sugerem maior eficácia da ablação por cateter que das DAA como estratégia inicial de controle do ritmo cardíaco em pacientes com DA sintomática.

Ablação por Cateter é Superior a Drogas Antiarrítmicas como Tratamento de primeira linha para Fibrilação Atrial: uma Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise / Catheter Ablation is Superior to Antiarrhythmic Drugs as First-Line Treatment for Atrial Fibrillation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Resumo Fundamento A ablação por cateter é uma terapia bem estabelecida para controle do ritmo cardíaco em pacientes refratários ou intolerantes a drogas antiarrítmicas (DAA). Porém, a eficácia desse procedimento comparada à de DAA como estratégia de primeira linha no controle do ritmo cardíaco na fibrilação atrial é menos conhecida. Objetivos Conduzir uma revisão sistemática e metanálise da ablação por cateter vs. DAA em pacientes sem nenhum tratamento prévio para controle do ritmo. Métodos Buscamos, nos bancos de dados do PubMed, EMBASE, e Cochrane, ensaios randomizados controlados que compararam ablação por cateter com DAA para controle do ritmo cardíaco em pacientes com FA sintomática e descreveram os seguintes desfechos: (1) recorrência de taquiarritmia atrial (TA); (2) FA sintomática; (3) internações hospitalares; e (4) bradicardia sintomática. A heterogeneidade foi avaliada por estatística I2. Valores de p menores que 0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significativos. Resultados Incluímos cinco ensaios com 994 pacientes, dos quais 502 (50,5%) foram submetidos à ablação por cateter. O período médio de acompanhamento foi de um a cinco anos. Recorrências de TA (OR 0,36; IC95% 0,25-0,52; p<0,001) e de FA sintomática (OR 0,32; IC95% 0,18-0,57; p<0,001), e internações hospitalares (OR 0,25; IC95% 0,15-0,42; p<0,001) foram menos frequentes nos pacientes tratados com ablação por cateter que naqueles tratados com DAA. Bradicardia sintomática não foi diferente entre os grupos (OR 0,55; IC95% 0,18-1,65; p=0,28). Derrame ou tamponamento pericárdico significativo ocorreu em oito dos 464 (1,7%) pacientes no grupo submetido à ablação. Conclusão Esses achados sugerem maior eficácia da ablação por cateter que das DAA como estratégia inicial de controle do ritmo cardíaco em pacientes com DA sintomática.

Abstract Background Catheter ablation is a well-established therapy for rhythm control in patients who are refractory or intolerant to anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD). Less is known about the efficacy of catheter ablation compared with AAD as a first-line strategy for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF). Objectives We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of catheter ablation vs. AAD in patients naïve to prior rhythm control therapies. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared catheter ablation to AAD for initial rhythm control in symptomatic AF and reported the outcomes of (1) recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs); (2) symptomatic AF; (3) hospitalizations; and (4) symptomatic bradycardia. Heterogeneity was examined with I2statistics. P values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results We included five trials with 994 patients, of whom 502 (50.5%) underwent catheter ablation. Mean follow-up ranged from one to five years. Recurrences of AT (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25-0.52; p<0.001) and symptomatic AF (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.18-0.57; p<0.001), and hospitalizations (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.15-0.42; p<0.001) were significantly less frequent in patients treated with catheter ablation compared with AAD. Symptomatic bradycardia was not significantly different between groups (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.65; p=0.28). Significant pericardial effusions or tamponade occurred in eight of 464 (1.7%) patients in the catheter ablation group. Conclusion These findings suggest that catheter ablation has superior efficacy to AAD as an initial rhythm control strategy in patients with symptomatic AF.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonists Versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Bioprosthetic Valves: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves are at high risk for thromboembolic events. The pooled efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs), as a class, relative to warfarin in this population is not well-known. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs relative to warfarin in patients with bioprosthetic valves or valve repair. METHODS: We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials comparing NOACs to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves or valve repair. We pooled outcomes for stroke or systemic embolism, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and major bleeding. RESULTS: We included 4 trials with 1379 patients, of whom 723 (52.4%) received a NOAC. Mean follow-up ranged from 90 days to 2.8 years. In the pooled analysis, stroke or systemic embolism was significantly lower in patients treated with NOACs (1.9%) compared with warfarin (3.7%) (odds ratio [OR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-0.85; P = .02). Ischemic stroke (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.18-2.93), hemorrhagic stroke (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.03-1.05), cardiovascular death (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.38-1.62), and all-cause mortality (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.55-1.62) were not significantly different among groups. Major bleeding was significantly lower in patients treated with NOAC (2.8%) compared with warfarin (4.7%) (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.88; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation and bioprosthetic valves or valve repair, NOACs are associated with a reduced incidence of thromboembolic events and major bleeding as compared with warfarin. Thus, NOACs may be considered a preferred option for this patient population.