Impact of Bempedoic acid on LDL-C reduction and cardiovascular outcomes: A comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The management of LDL-C levels is pivotal in the prevention of cardiovascular morbidity, particularly among patients at high risk or those intolerant to statins. Bempedoic acid emerges as a novel agent in this therapeutic arena. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis endeavor to quantify the effectiveness of Bempedoic acid in attenuating LDL-C levels and explore its impact on cardiovascular morbidity, emphasizing its role as an adjunctive or alternative therapy in statin-intolerant or high-risk patients. METHODS: A comprehensive search spanning PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases furnished studies for this review. The inclusion was critiqued based on predefined PICOS parameters, ensuring a robust analytical framework. RESULTS: Bempedoic acid showcased a significant plunge in LDL-C levels (MD -20.69 %, 95 % CI [-23.20, -18.19]), outperforming placebo and ezetimibe monotherapy. The cardioprotective effect was further echoed with a reduced risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in the Bempedoic acid cohort (RR 0.86, 95 % CI [0.80, 0.94]). However, a dive into the safety profile revealed no substantial augmentation in adverse events, affirming its tolerance and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Bempedoic acid represents a potent therapeutic ally, affirming its capacity to significantly pare down LDL-C levels and curtail cardiovascular events. Its favorable safety profile underscores its suitability, especially among those with statin intolerance or individuals categorized within the high-risk vascular bracket, necessitating a paradigm shift in current lipid management strategies.

Efficacy and Complication Profiles of Left Ventricular Assist Devices in Adult Heart Failure Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have marked a milestone in the evolution of treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure. Their popularity and use are steadily rising. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LVADs in improving the survival rate of patients with end-stage heart failure and to identify the complications or adverse events associated with LVAD use. Articles for this systematic review and meta-analysis were sourced from PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases. Only studies that met the predefined PICOS eligibility criteria were analyzed. LVADs significantly improved the 6, 12, 18, and 24-month survival rates in patients with end-stage heart failure compared to no LVAD or other therapies: OR 1.87 (95%CI [1.27-2.76]), OR 2.29 (95%CI [1.61-3.26]), OR 2.07 (95%CI [0.61-6.61]), and OR 1.73 (95%CI [0.88-3.41]) for 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the LVAD group than in the non-LVAD treatments: bleeding OR 12.53 (95%CI [2.60-60.41]), infections OR 4.15 (95%CI [1.19-14.45]), stroke OR 2.58 (95%CI [1.38-4.82]), and arrhythmia OR 2.81 (95%CI [1.64-4.80]). Overall, complications were higher in the LVAD group compared to those without LVAD treatment. Hospital readmissions due to adverse events were significantly more frequent in the LVAD group, OR 2.98 (95%CI [1.38-6.43]). Despite the elevated risk of adverse events associated with LVADs, these devices have demonstrated a notable enhancement in the survival outcomes for patients with end-stage heart failure.