Hypothermia as an Adjunctive Therapy to Percutaneous Intervention in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.

INTRODUCTION: In the setting of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), several randomized control trials (RCTs) suggested a potential benefit with the use of therapeutic hypothermia (TH). However, results from previous studies are contradictory. METHOD: We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive TH compared to the standard percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in awake patients with STEMI. The primary outcomes were the infarct size (IS) and microvascular obstruction (MVO) assessed by cardiac imaging at the end of follow-up. The secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), procedure-related complications, and door-to-balloon time. Relative risk (RR) or the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 10 RCTs, including 706 patients were included. As compared to standard PCI, TH was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in the IS (MD: -0.87 %, 95%CI: -2.97, 1.23; P = 0.42) or in the MVO (MD: 0.11 %, 95%CI: -0.06, 0.27; P = 0.21). MACE and its components were comparable between the two groups. However, the TH approach was associated with an increased risk of infection and prolonged door-to-balloon time. Furthermore, there was a trend in the TH group toward an increased incidence of stent thrombosis and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: According to our meta-analysis of published RCTs, TH is not beneficial in awake patients with STEMI and has a marginal safety profile with potential for care delays. Larger-scale RCTs are needed to further clarify our results.

Triglyceride Glucose Index for the Prediction of Subclinical Atherosclerosis and Arterial Stiffness: A Meta-analysis of 37,780 Individuals.

Insulin resistance (IR), which can be assessed by triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index, is a major contributor to the pathogenesis of cardiovascular diseases. Arterial stiffness is an index of subclinical atherosclerosis. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the existing studies and provide a quantitative assessment of the significance of the TyG index in predicting the incidence of subclinical atherosclerosis and arterial stiffness. A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases from inception until April 30, 2022 was conducted. Published observational studies that evaluated the association between TyG index and arterial stiffness among the adult population and reported odds ratio (OR) for this association after multivariate analysis were included. The random-effects model was used for the estimation of pooled ORs with the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 9 observational studies, including 37780 participants, were included. Seven out of the 9 studies analyzed the TyG index as a categorical variable and showed a statistically significant association between TyG index and incident arterial stiffness (pooled OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.52-2.53, P<0.00001, I2=82%). Additionally, similar results were in the 3 studies that analyzed TyG index as a continuous variable (pooled OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.26-1.49, P<0.00001, I2=0%). In conclusion, our meta-analysis demonstrates that a higher TyG index is associated with higher odds of subclinical atherosclerosis and arterial stiffness. TyG index may be used as an independent predictor of an increased risk of subclinical atherosclerosis and arterial stiffness.

Steerable versus nonsteerable sheath technology in atrial fibrillation ablation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Catheter placement and stability are well-known challenges in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. As a result, steerable sheaths (SS) were developed to improve catheter stabilization and maintain proper catheter-tissue contact. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to see if employing a SS influences procedure outcome. Method: We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of SS compared to nonsteerable sheaths (NSS) in AF ablation. The primary outcome was the rate of atrial arrhythmia (AA) freedom by the time of the last follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the procedure-related complications and procedural characteristics. Risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model. Results: A total of 10 studies, including 967 AF patients (mean age: 59.2 ± 11.1 years, 516 patients managed with SS vs. 454 with NSS), were included. SS group showed a higher rate of freedom of AA compared to NSS (RR: 1.19; 95% CI 1.09-1.29; p < .001). Both techniques had similar rate for procedural-related complication (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.50-2.39; p = .83). The SS strategy had a shorter procedure time (MD -10.6 [min], 95% CI -20.97, -0.20; p = .05) but comparable fluoroscopic and radiofrequency application times to the NSS group. Conclusions: The SS for AF catheter ablation not only reduced the total procedure time but also significantly increased the rate of successful ablation while maintaining a similar safety profile when compared to the traditional NSS.

AngioVac for Vegetation Debulking in Right-sided Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To investigate the utility of AngioVac-assisted vegetation debulking (AVD) in right sided infective endocarditis (RSIE). AngioVac is a vacuum-based device that was approved in 2014 for the percutaneous removal of undesirable materials from the intravascular system. Although there are multiple reports on the use of the AngioVac device to aspirate right-sided heart chamber thrombi, data on its use to treat RSIE is limited. We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the utility of AVD. The primary outcomes of our study were the procedural success, defined as the ability of AngioVac to produce residual vegetation size <50% (RVS<50%) without serious procedural complications, and the clinical success, defined as composite of RVS<50%, in-hospital survival, absence of recurrent bacteremia, and valve function not requiring further intervention. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcomes and average length of hospital stay. The pooled means and proportions of our data were analyzed using random effects model, generic inverse variance method, and represented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 44 studies, including 301 patients (mean age: 44.6 ± 18.2 years, 71.6% males) were included. Procedural success was achieved in 89.2% of patients (95% CI:82.3%-93.6%, I2 = 0%). Clinical success was achieved in 79.1% of patients (95% CI:67.9%-87.2%, I2 = 15%). Overall survival rate was 89.7% (95% CI:83.1%-93.9%%, I2 = 9%). Our meta-analysis demonstrates that AVD is a promising therapeutic option for RSIE offering a high success rate with an acceptable complication rate across a wide range of patients.

Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Patients With High Bleeding Risk.

Our study aims to compare the utility of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following Left atrial appendage occlusion in patients whose post-procedural oral anticoagulation therapy was deemed high-risk or contraindicated. A total of 14 observational studies with 3,151 patients were included. Our study demonstrates that SAPT and DAPT were similar in preventing device-related thrombosis. Although SAPT and DAPT had a tendency toward a higher risk for stroke and major bleeding respectively, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Large-scale Randomized Controlled Studies are warranted to validate if our results could be translated into clinical practice.

What's Up Your Sleeve? A Scoping Review of White Coat Contamination and Horizontal Microbial Transmission.

OBJECTIVES: White coats have been suggested to serve as fomites carrying and transmitting pathogenic organisms and potentially increasing the risk of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). We aimed to examine the current evidence regarding white coat contamination and its role in horizontal transmission and HAIs risk. We also examined handling practices and policies associated with white coat contamination in the reviewed literature. METHODS: We conducted a literature search through PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection/Cited Reference Search, and manually searched the bibliographies of the articles identified in electronic searches. Studies published up to March 3, 2021 that were accessible in English-language full-text format were included. RESULTS: Among 18 included studies, 15 (83%) had ≥100 participants, 16 (89%) were cross-sectional studies, and 13 (72%) originated outside of the United States. All of the studies showed evidence of microbial colonization. Colonization with Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli was reported in 100% and 44% of the studies, respectively. Antibacterial-resistant strains, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and multidrug-resistant organisms were reported in 8 (44%) studies. There was a lack of studies assessing the link between white coat contamination and HAIs. The data regarding white coat handling and laundering practices showed inconsistencies between healthcare facilities and a lack of clear policies. CONCLUSIONS: There is robust evidence that white coats serve as fomites, carrying dangerous pathogens, including multidrug-resistant organisms. A knowledge gap exists, however, regarding the role of contaminated white coats in HAI risk that warrants further research to generate the evidence necessary to guide the current attire policies for healthcare workers.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) have been widely used in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to COVID-19. However, the impact of HFNC versus NIV on clinical outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of HFNC versus NIV in COVID-19-related AHRF. METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched through February 10, 2022, for eligible studies comparing HFNC and NIV in COVID-19-related AHRF. Our primary outcome was intubation. The secondary outcomes were mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and PaO2 /FIO2 changes. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% CI were obtained using a random-effect model. Prediction intervals were calculated to indicate the variance in outcomes that would be expected if new studies were conducted in the future. RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 3,606 subjects (1,880 received HFNC and 1,726 received NIV) were included. There were no differences in intubation (RR 1.01 [95% CI 0.85-1.20], P = .89) or LOS (MD 0.38 d [95% CI -0.61 to 1.37], P = .45) between groups, with consistent results on the subgroup of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Mortality was lower in NIV (RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.66-0.98], P = .03). However, the prediction interval was 0.41-1.59, and subgroup analysis of RCTs showed no difference in mortality between groups. There was a greater improvement in PaO2 /FIO2 with NIV (MD 22.80 [95% CI 5.30-40.31], P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that despite the greater improvement in PaO2 /FIO2 with NIV, intubation rates and LOS were similar between HFNC and NIV. Although mortality was lower with HFNC than NIV, the prediction interval included the null value, and there was no difference in mortality between HFNC and NIV on a subgroup of RCTs. Future large-scale RCTs are necessary to support our findings.

Lung ultrasound-guided management to reduce hospitalization in chronic heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pulmonary edema is a leading cause of hospital admissions, morbidity, and mortality in heart failure (HF) patients. A point-of-care lung ultrasound (LUS) is a useful tool to detect subclinical pulmonary edema. We performed a comprehensive literature search of multiple databases for studies that evaluated the clinical utility of LUS-guided management versus standard care for HF patients in the outpatient setting. The primary outcome of interest was HF hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, urgent visits for HF worsening, acute kidney injury (AKI), and hypokalemia rates. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and combined using random-effect model meta-analysis. A total of 3 randomized controlled trials including 493 HF patients managed in the outpatient setting (251 managed with LUS plus physical examination (PE)-guided therapy vs. 242 managed with PE-guided therapy alone) were included in the final analysis. The mean follow-up period was 5 months. There was no significant difference in HF hospitalization rate between the two groups (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.34-1.22; P = 0.18). Similarly, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.39; 95% CI 0.68-2.82; P = 0.37), AKI (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.60-2.69; P = 0.52), and hypokalemia (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.21-2.44; P = 0.59). However, LUS-guided therapy was associated with a lower rate for urgent care visits (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.18-0.59; P = 0.0002). Our study demonstrated that outpatient LUS-guided diuretic therapy of pulmonary congestion reduces urgent visits for worsening symptoms of HF. Further studies are needed to evaluate LUS utility in the outpatient treatment of HF.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravascular Lithotripsy in Calcified Coronary Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is a recently introduced therapeutic modality in the management of calcified coronary lesions (CCAD). IVL delivers sonic pressure waves to modulate calcium, hence promote vessel compliance and optimize stent deployment. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the utility of adjunctive IVL. The primary outcomes of our study were the clinical success, defined as the ability of IVL to produce residual diameter stenosis <50% (RDS < 50%) after stenting with no evidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events, and the angiographic success, defined as success in facilitating stent delivery with RDS < 50% and without serious angiographic complications. The secondary outcomes included post-IVL and post-stenting changes in lumen area, calcium angle, and the maximum calcium thickness. Proportional analysis was used for binary data and mean difference was used for continuous data. All meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were included. RESULTS: A total of eight single-arm observational studies, including 980 patients (1011 lesions), were included. 48.8% of the patients presented with acute coronary syndrome. Severe calcifications were present in 97% of lesions. Clinical success was achieved in 95.4% of patients (95%CI:92.9%-97.9%). Angiographic success was achieved in 97% of patients (95%CI:95%-99%). There was an overall increase in postprocedural lumen area as well as significant reduction of calcium angle and maximum calcium thickness. CONCLUSIONS: IVL seems to have excellent efficacy and safety in the management of CCAD. However, adequately powered RCTs are needed to evaluate IVL compared to other calcium/plaque modifying techniques.

Efficacy of remote physiological monitoring-guided care for chronic heart failure: an updated meta-analysis.

Previous studies have reported contradictory findings on the utility of remote physiological monitoring (RPM)-guided management of patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Multiple databases were searched for studies that evaluated the clinical efficacy of RPM-guided management versus standard of care (SOC) for HF patients. The primary outcome was HF-related hospitalization (HFH). The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related (CV) mortality, and emergency department (ED) visits. Pooled relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and combined using a random-effects model. A total of 16 randomized controlled trials, including 8679 HF patients (4574 managed with RPM-guided therapy vs. 4105 managed with SOC), were included in the final analysis. The average follow-up period was 15.2 months. There was no significant difference in HFH rate between the two groups (RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.84-1.07; P = 0.36). Similarly, there were no significant differences in CV mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73-1.02, P = 0.08) or in ED visits (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59-1.08, P = 0.14). However, RPM-guided therapy was associated with a borderline statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.78-1.00; P = 0.05). Subgroup analysis based on the strategy of RPM showed that both hemodynamic and arrhythmia telemonitoring-guided management can reduce the risk of HFH (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64-0.97; P = 0.02) and (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.67-0.94; P = 0.008) respectively. Our study demonstrated that RPM-guided diuretic therapy of HF patients did not reduce the risk of HFH but can improve survival. Hemodynamic and arrhythmia telemonitoring-guided management could reduce the risk of HF-related hospitalizations.

Effect of Prone Positioning on Clinical Outcomes of Non-Intubated Subjects With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (APP) has been recently proposed as an adjunctive treatment for non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring oxygen therapy to improve oxygenation and reduce the risk of intubation. However, the magnitude of the effect of APP on clinical outcomes in these patients remains uncertain. We performed a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of APP to improve the clinical outcomes in non-intubated subjects with COVID-19. METHODS: The primary outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation and mortality. The secondary outcome was hospital length of stay. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference with the corresponding 95% CI were obtained by the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effect model. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies (5 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 9 observational studies) involving 3,324 subjects (1,495 received APP and 1,829 did not) were included. There was a significant reduction in the mortality rate in APP group compared to control (RR 0.68 [95% CI 0.51-0.90]; P = .008, I2 = 52%) with no significant effect on intubation (RR 0.85 [95% CI 0.66-1.08]; P = .17, I2 = 63%) or hospital length of stay (mean difference -3.09 d [95% CI-10.14-3.96]; P = .39, I2 = 97%). Subgroup analysis of RCTs showed significant reduction in intubation rate (RR 0.83 [95% CI 0.72-0.97]; P = .02, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: APP has the potential to reduce the in-hospital mortality rate in COVID-19 subjects with hypoxemia without a significant effect on the need for intubation or length of hospital stay. However, there was a significant decrease in the need for intubation on subgroup analysis of RCTs. More large-scale trials with a standardized protocol for prone positioning are needed to better evaluate its effectiveness in this select population.

In-Hospital Mortality and Morbidity in Cancer Patients with COVID-19: A Nationwide Analysis from the United States.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused significant mortality and mortality worldwide. There is limited information describing the outcomes of COVID-19 in cancer patients. Methods: We utilized the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2020 database to collect information on cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the United States. Using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) coding system, adult (≥18 years) patients with COVID-19 were identified. Adjusted analyses were performed to assess for mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization among cancer patients. Results: A total of 1,050,045 patients were included. Of them, 27,760 had underlying cancer. Cancer patients were older and had more comorbidities. The all-cause in-hospital mortality rate in cancer patients was 17.58% vs. 11% in non-cancer. After adjusted logistic regression, cancer patients had a 21% increase in the odds of all-cause in-hospital mortality compared with those without cancer (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.21, 95%CI 1.12−1.31, p-value < 0.001). Additionally, an increased odds in acute respiratory failure rate was found (aOR 1.14, 95%CI 1.06−1.22, p-value < 0.001). However, no significant differences were found in the odds of septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and mechanical ventilation between the two groups. Additionally, no significant differences in the mean length of hospital stay and the total hospitalization charges between cancer and non-cancer patients. Conclusion: Cancer patients hospitalized for COVID-19 had increased odds of all-cause in hospital mortality and acute respiratory failure compared with non-cancer patients.

Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Endocardial catheter ablation (ECA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has limited efficacy. Hybrid convergent procedure (HCP) with both epicardial and endocardial ablation is a novel strategy for AF treatment. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HCP in AF ablation. METHOD: We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of HCP compared with ECA for AF. The primary outcome was freedom of atrial arrhythmia (AA). The secondary outcome was the periprocedural complication rate. Pooled relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effects model. RESULTS: A total of eight studies, including 797 AF patients (mean age: 60.7 ± 9.8 years, 366 patients with HCP vs. 431 patients with ECA alone), were included. HCP showed a higher rate of freedom of AA compared with ECA (RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.13-1.94, p = .004). However, HCP was associated with higher rates of periprocedural complications (RR: 3.64, 95% CI: 2.06-6.43; p = .00001). Moreover, the HCP had a longer procedure time and postprocedural hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Although hybrid ablation was associated with a higher success rate, this should be judged for increased periprocedural adverse events and extended hospital stay. Prospective large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these results.

Adjunctive Vein of Marshall Ethanol Infusion During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) can be associated with limited efficacy. Due to its autonomic innervation, the vein of Marshall (VOM) is an attractive target during AF ablation. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjunctive ethanol infusion of VOM (VOM-EI) in AF ablation. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of VOM-EI in AF ablation compared to AF catheter ablation alone. The primary outcome of interest was late (≥3 months) AF or atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence. The secondary outcomes included acute mitral isthmus bidirectional block (MIBB) and procedural complications (pericardial effusion, stroke, or atrio-esophageal fistula). Pooled relative risk (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of four studies, including 804 AF patients (68.2% with persistent AF, the mean age of 63.5±9.9 years, 401 patients underwent VOM-EI plus CA vs. 403 patients who had CA alone), were included in the final analysis. VOM-EI group was associated with a lower risk of late AF/AT recurrence (RR:0.63; 95% CI:0.46-0.87; P = 0.005), and increased probability to achieve acute MIBB (RR:1.39; 95% CI:1.08-1.79; P = 0.009) without an increase in procedural complications (RR:1.05; 95% CI:0.57-1.94; P = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that adjunctive VOM-EI strategy is more effective than conventional catheter ablation with similar safety profiles.

Outcomes of distal versus conventional transradial access for coronary angiography and intervention: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Distal transradial artery access (DTRA) has recently gained attention due to potential benefits in terms of local complications. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the utility of DTRA compared to conventional transradial artery access (CTRA) for coronary angiography and intervention. METHOD: Multiple databases were searched from inception through May 2021 for all the studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DTRA in the coronary field. The primary outcome was the access success rate. The secondary outcomes were periprocedural local complications (site hematoma, radial artery occlusion, and spasm) and procedural characteristics (cannulation, fluoroscopy, procedure, and radial artery compression times). All meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effect model. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies (including four randomized control trials) with 1634 patients who underwent DTRA vs. 1657 with CTRA were included in the final analysis. The access success rate was similar between the two groups (odds ratio (OR):0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI):0.30-1.26; P = 0.18; I2 = 61%). DTRA was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of radial artery occlusion (OR:0.36; 95% CI: 0.22-0.59; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) but similar rates of radial artery spasm and site hematoma when compared to CTRA. Regarding the procedural characteristics, despite having a longer canulation time (mean difference (min.) [MD] 0.89, 95% CI 0.36-1.42; P < 0.0001), DTRA was associated with shorter compression time and comparable fluoroscopy and procedure times. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that the DTRA is effective and safe with superiority in preventing radial artery occlusion when compared to CTRA.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Morbidly Obese Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly preferred over warfarin; however, The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis recommended avoiding the use of DOACs in morbidly obese patients (body mass index >40 or weight >120 kg) because of limited clinical data. STUDY QUESTION: Are DOACs effective and safe in morbidly obese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search for published studies indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DOACs in morbidly obese patients with NVAF. STUDY DESIGN: Information on patient characteristics, comorbidities, primary anticoagulation indications, pharmacologic treatment, and outcomes were collected. The primary outcome of interest was stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) rate. The secondary outcome was major bleeding (MB). RESULTS: A total of 10 studies including, 89,494 morbidly obese patients with NVAF on oral anticoagulation therapy (45,427 on DOACs vs. 44,067 on warfarin) were included in the final analysis. The SSE rate was significantly lower in DOACs group compared with warfarin group [odds ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.62-0.81; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%]. MB rate was also significantly lower in DOACs group compared with the warfarin group (odds ratio: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.46-0.78; P < 0.0001; I2 = 86%). On subgroup analysis, SSE and MB event rates were significantly lower in rivaroxaban and apixaban than warfarin; however, dabigatran showed noninferiority to warfarin in SSE rate but superiority in the safety outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that DOACs are effective and safe with statistical superiority when compared with warfarin in morbidly obese patients. Large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in this cohort of patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists in the Treatment of Left Ventricular Thrombus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular thrombus (LVT) may develop in systolic heart failure or after acute myocardial infarction. The current recommendations support the use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of LVT. Limited data exist regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with LVT. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs for LVT. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases through November 2020 for all studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of DOACs versus VKAs in patients with LVT. The primary outcomes were LVT resolution, overall thromboembolic events, and thromboembolic stroke. The secondary outcomes were major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained by the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies including 2153 patients with LVT on anticoagulation (570 on DOACs vs. 1583 on VKAs) were included. LVT resolution was significantly higher in DOACs compared with VKAs [RR: 1.18 (95% CI: 1.04-1.35); P = 0.01, I2 = 25%]. However, no significant difference existed between DOACs and VKAs regarding overall thromboembolic events [RR: 1.10 (95% CI: 0.75-1.62); P = 0.61, I2 = 0%] and thromboembolic stroke [RR: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.39-1.02); P = 0.06, I2 = 0%]. Major bleeding [RR: 1.00 (95% CI: 0.66-1.51); P = 0.99, I2 = 4%] and all-cause mortality [RR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.50-1.43); P = 0.53, I2 = 0%] were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: DOACs seem to be more efficacious in achieving LVT resolution compared with VKAs. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in thromboembolic events, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.