Meta-analysis of high-power short-duration versus cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The existing literature regarding the treatment strategy for high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation in patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently insufficient. The objective of this study is to perform a comparative analysis evaluating the effectiveness, safety, and procedural efficiency of HPSD versus cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for AF. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify trials comparing HPSD with CBA for AF from their inception until December 25, 2023. Treatment effect measures were expressed as odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), accompanied by a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The analysis comprised six eligible trials involving a total enrollment of 2481 patients. No statistically significant disparities were observed in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (OR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16) or total complications (OR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.38-1.12) between the two ablation techniques examined in this study. However, HPSD technique exhibited a significantly prolonged procedure time (MD 27.42; 95% CI, 19.03 to 35.81). Conversely, no significant differences were observed between the two modalities in terms of total fluoroscopy duration (MD -4.37; 95% CI -10.70 to 1.96) and ablation time (MD 7.95; 95% CI -3.97 to 19.88). Furthermore, HPSD demonstrated significantly higher odds of extrapulmonary vein (PV) trigger ablation compared to CBA (OR 18.86; 95% CI, 5.12-69.49). The subgroup analyses revealed that CBA continued to exhibit superior procedure time (except for the paroxysmal AF subgroup: [MD 29.52; 95% CI -4.25 to 63.60]), while no significant differences in safety and efficacy (except for the HPSD ≥ 70 W subgroup: [OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.97]) outcomes were still observed. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing ablation therapy for AF, both HPSD and CBA demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety profiles; however, HPSD is associated with longer procedural time and higher rates of extra-PV trigger ablation.

Meta-analysis of pulsed-field ablation versus cryoablation for atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: The available data on the treatment strategy of pulsed field ablation (PFA) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of the efficacy, safety, and procedural efficiency between PFA and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for AF. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify trials comparing PFA with CBA for AF from their inception until December 2023. The odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD), along with a 95% confidence interval (CI), were utilized as measures of treatment effect. RESULTS: The analysis included 15 eligible trials with a total enrollment of 1880 patients. No significant differences were found in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64, 1.07) or periprocedural complications (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46, 1.30) between the two ablation techniques examined in this study. However, the PFA technique demonstrated a significantly shorter procedure time (MD -7.17, 95% CI -13.60, -0.73), but a longer fluoroscopy time (MD 2.53, 95% CI 0.87, 4.19). Similarly, PFA was found to be significantly associated with a decreased incidence of phrenic nerve palsy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07, 0.59), but an increased incidence of cardiac tamponade (OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.15, 14.39). Moreover, there was a significantly higher release of troponin with PFA compared to CBA (MD 470.28, 95% CI 18.89, 921.67), while the increase in S100 protein and heart rate was significantly lower with PFA than with CBA (MD -64.41, 95% CI -105.46, -17.36), (MD -8.76, 95% CI -15.12, -2.40). CONCLUSION: The utilization of PFA provides a safer, time-saving, and tissue-specific procedure compared to CBA, while maintaining comparable success rates. This has the potential to enhance procedural efficiency and optimize resource utilization in clinical practice. These findings underscore the feasibility and promise of PFA as an alternative technique for PVI in patients with AF.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of heterologous immunization schedules with COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on the immunogenicity and safety of heterologous immunization schedules are inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of homologous and heterologous immunization schedules. METHODS: Multiple databases with relevant studies were searched with an end date of October 31, 2021, and a website including a series of Coronavirus disease 2019 studies was examined for studies before March 31, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different heterologous and homologous regimens among adults that reported immunogenicity and safety outcomes were reviewed. Primary outcomes included neutralizing antibodies against the original strain and serious adverse events (SAEs). A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using a random-effects model. RESULTS: In all, 11 RCTs were included in the systematic review, and nine were ultimately included in the NMA. Among participants who received two doses of CoronaVac, another dose of mRNA or a non-replicating viral vector vaccine resulted in a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than a third CoronaVac 600 sino unit (SU); a dose of BNT162b2 induced the highest geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 15.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.53-24.39. Following one dose of BNT162b2 vaccination, a dose of mRNA-1273 generated a significantly higher level of neutralizing antibody than BNT162b2 alone (GMR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.06-1.64), NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.16-2.21), or ChAdOx1 (GMR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.25-2.59). Following one dose of ChAdOx1, a dose of mRNA-1273 was also more effective for improving antibody levels than ChAdOx1 (GMR = 11.09; 95% CI: 8.36-14.71) or NVX-CoV2373 (GMR = 2.87; 95% CI: 1.08-3.91). No significant difference in the risk for SAEs was found in any comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to vaccination with two doses of CoronaVac, a dose of BNT162b2 as a booster substantially enhances immunogenicity reactions and has a relatively acceptable risk for SAEs relative to other vaccines. For primary vaccination, schedules including mRNA vaccines induce a greater immune response. However, the comparatively higher risk for local and systemic adverse events introduced by mRNA vaccines should be noted. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; No. CRD42021278149.

Indirect Comparison of Cryoablation and Radiofrequency Ablation as Initial Therapy for Symptomatic Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Data on first-line ablation treatment for patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) are scarce. This study indirectly compared the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) as initial therapy for symptomatic AF. METHODS: We searched the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CBA or RFA with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) as first-line treatment for AF from the time of database establishment up to December 2021. The odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as a measure of the treatment effect. RESULTS: Six RCTs (3 CBA, 3 RFA) that enrolled a total of 1,215 patients were included in this analysis. There were no significant differences in atrial arrhythmia (AA) (OR 0.993, 95% CI: 0.602-1.638), symptomatic AA (OR 0.638, 95% CI: 0.344-1.182), or serious adverse events (OR 1.474, 95% CI: 0.404-5.376) between the two ablation techniques. The incidences of additional CBA therapy (OR 2.693, 95% CI: 1.277-5.681) and patients who crossed over to AAD therapy (OR 0.345, 95% CI: 0.179-0.664) in the CBA group were significantly lower than those in the RFA group. CONCLUSION: Among patients with paroxysmal AF receiving initial therapy, CBA and RFA share a similar efficacy and safety profile. When pulmonary vein isolation is performed by CBA, study crossover and the need for additional ablation are substantially lower.

Discontinuation Rates of Tadalafil Alone and in Combination with a-Blockers in the Treatment of Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms with or without Coexisting Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: We examined the discontinuation rates of tadalafil alone and in combination with a-blockers (ABs) for the treatment of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), with or without erectile dysfunction (ED). Materials and Methods: We searched the EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for studies published until May 15, 2022. The discontinuation rates associated with LUTS medications were subsequently analyzed by meta-analysis. Results: Forty-four studies, including 1724 discontinued patients, were included. The combined discontinuation rate was 12.78% (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.89-15.98%), and the discontinuation rates because of adverse events and lack of efficacy were 4.56% (95% CI 3.39-5.90%) and 3.30% (95% CI 1.53-5.72%), respectively. Conclusions: The discontinuation rate of tadalafil alone or in combination with ABs for LUTS with or without ED was relatively low and varied according to the study type. Patients receiving monotherapy or combination therapy were similarly likely to abandon treatment. Treatment with a fixed-dose combination was associated with better persistence than with a free-dose combination. These data may help guide clinicians in selecting drug regimens when making decisions. Factors associated with treatment withdrawal need to be determined through high-quality clinical studies to reduce the drug discontinuation rate, which will ultimately reduce healthcare costs and improve patient outcomes.

Semaglutide and Diabetic Retinopathy Risk in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Semaglutide is a recently approved glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The SUSTAIN 6 trial found a significantly higher rate of retinopathy complications in the semaglutide-treated group compared with the placebo group. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the association between semaglutide and the risk of retinopathy in patients with T2DM. METHODS: Electronic databases were systematically searched up to April 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials that reported diabetic retinopathy (DR) events in semaglutide-treated and control groups. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 software to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 23 randomized trials involving 22,096 patients with T2DM were included. There were 730 incident DR cases-463 in the semaglutide group and 267 in the control group. Overall, semaglutide was not associated with increased DR risk compared with controls when all trials were combined (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98-1.33). Subgroup analysis showed that semaglutide was associated with an increased risk of DR compared with placebo (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.50). Moreover, patient age ≥ 60 years and diabetes duration ≥ 10 years were also factors for increased risk of DR when using semaglutide (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.59; RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04-1.58, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide was not associated with an increased risk of DR; however, caution regarding DR risk is needed for older patients or those with long diabetes duration when taking semaglutide.

Reinfection rates among patients previously infected by SARS-CoV-2: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic or symptomatic infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can be followed by reinfection. The protection conferred by prior infection among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is unclear. We assessed the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and the protection effect of previous infection against reinfection. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for publications up until the end date of May 1, 2021. The reinfection rate of recovered patients and the protection against reinfection were analyzed using meta-analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 19 studies of 1096 reinfection patients were included. The pooled reinfection rate was 0.65% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-0.98%). The symptomatic reinfection rate was a bit lower (0.37% [95% CI 0.11-0.78%], I2 = 99%). The reinfection rate was much higher in high-risk populations (1.59% [95% CI 0.30-3.88%], I2 = 90%). The protection against reinfection and symptomatic reinfection was similar (87.02% [95% CI 83.22-89.96%] and 87.17% [95% CI 83.09-90.26%], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is relatively low. The protection against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection is comparable to that estimated for vaccine efficacy. These data may help guide public health measures and vaccination strategies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. High-quality clinical studies are needed to establish the relevant risk factors in recovered patients.

Meta-analysis of cryoballoon ablation versus antiarrhythmic drugs as initial therapy for symptomatic atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal first-line approach for patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unclear. We compared the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in the initial management of symptomatic AF. HYPOTHESIS: CBA is superior to AAD as initial therapy for symptomatic AF. METHODS: We searched the EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CBA with AAD as first-line treatment for AF from the date of database establishment until March 18, 2021. The risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as a measure of treatment effect. RESULTS: Three RCTs that enrolled 724 patients in total were included in this meta-analysis. Majority of the patients were relatively young and had paroxysmal AF. CBA was associated with a significant reduction in the recurrence of atrial arrhythmia compared with AAD therapy, with low heterogeneity (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.49-0.71; p < .00001; I2  = 0%). There was a significant difference in the rate of symptomatic atrial arrhythmia recurrence (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29-0.65; p < .0001; I2  = 0%); however, the rate of serious adverse events was similar between the two treatment groups (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.71-1.97, p = .53; I2  = 0%). Transient phrenic nerve palsy occurred in four patients after the CBA procedure. CONCLUSION: The current meta-analysis suggests that CBA is more effective than AAD as initial therapy in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF. Serious iatrogenic adverse events are uncommon in CBAs.

Meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of using minimally interrupted novel oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: The ideal periprocedural anticoagulation strategy for patients being treated with a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) during catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of using a minimally interrupted NOAC strategy versus an uninterrupted NOAC or vitamin K antagonist (VKA) strategy during AF ablation. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled or prospective observational studies that compared a minimally interrupted NOAC strategy with an uninterrupted NOAC or VKA strategy from the time of database establishment up to December 2019. The primary endpoints were major bleeding, minor bleeding, and symptomatic thromboembolism. The secondary endpoint was silent cerebral infarction (SCI) as detected by post-ablation brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A measurement of treatment effect for the endpoint was reported as pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 18 studies (6 randomized, 11 observational, and 1 randomized registry) with 6203 patients were included in the final analysis (47% of the patients received minimally interrupted NOAC). There was no significant difference between treatment groups regarding the risk for major bleeding (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69-1.57, P = 0.86, I2 = 27%). Different stratification methods did not yield significant difference regarding the risk for major bleeding. There was no difference between groups regarding the risk for minor bleeding (P = 1.00) or symptomatic thromboembolism (P = 0.26). Brain MRI results showed that both uninterrupted NOAC (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.83, P = 0.01, I2 = 72%) and uninterrupted VKA (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24-0.97, P = 0.04, I2 = 36%) produced a significant reduction in the rate of SCI when compared with minimally interrupted NOAC. CONCLUSIONS: A periprocedural anticoagulation strategy of minimally interrupted NOAC is not superior to uninterrupted NOAC or VKA when used during AF ablation. There is evidence favoring the use of uninterrupted NOAC or VKA in terms of the risk for SCI.

Meta-analysis of medical management versus catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

Several observational studies have shown a survival benefit for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are treated with catheter ablation (CA) rather than medical management (MM). However, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are uncertain. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of RCTs that compared the benefits of CA and MM in treatment of AF. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases for RCTs that compared AF ablation with MM from the time of database establishment up to January 2020. The risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as a measure treatment effect. Twenty-six RCTs that enrolled a total of 5788 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In this meta-analysis, the effect of AF ablation depended on the baseline level of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the heart failure (HF) patients. AF ablation appears to be of benefit to patients with a lesser degree of advanced HF and better LVEF by reducing mortality. Meanwhile, this mortality advantage was manifested in long-term follow-up. CA increased the risk for hospitalization when it was used as first-line therapy and decreased the risk when used as second-line therapy. CA reduced recurrence of atrial arrhythmia for different types of AF (paroxysmal or persistent AF) and CA-related complications were non-negligible. There was no convincing evidence for a reduction in long-term stroke risk after AF ablation, and additional high quality RCTs are needed to address that issue.

Peri-procedural novel oral anticoagulants dosing strategy during atrial fibrillation ablation: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed at determining whether uninterrupted novel oral anticoagulant (UI-NOAC) would have similar rates of bleeding and thromboembolic events as minimally interrupted NOAC (MI-NOAC) at the time of ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) as relevant studies are scarce. METHODS: We searched through the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for prospective observational studies (POSs) or randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UI-NOAC versus MI-NOAC from their establishment to January 2020. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the pooled treatment effect. RESULTS: Nine studies (three POSs and six RCTs) with 2578 patients were included in the final analysis (55% patients received MI-NOAC). No significant difference was found regarding the risk of major bleeding (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.43-2.00, P = .84, I2  = 0%). Both groups were comparable in all subgroups ([Asians: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43-2.36, P = .99, I2  = 0%], [non-Asians: OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.11-3.88, P = .63, I2  = 0%], [RCTs: OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.37-1.97, P = .71, I2  = 0%], and [POSs: OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.19-12.01, P = .69, I2  = 0%]). The risk of minor bleeding (P = .88) or stroke (P = .69) was comparable between the groups. UI-NOAC resulted in a significant reduction in silent stroke (SS) (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.83, P = .01, I2  = 72%). No significant difference was found in SS between once-daily and twice-daily NOACs (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63-1.33, P = .64, I2  = 0%) in the MI-NOAC group. CONCLUSIONS: UI-NOAC, as a peri-procedural anticoagulation strategy for catheter ablation in AF, had similar safety compared with MI-NOAC, but was advantageous in terms of SS.