-
Europace : European Pacing,... Nov 2023Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77-2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69-2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02-2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.
Topics: Humans; Defibrillators, Implantable; Vena Cava, Superior; Device Removal; Lasers; Cardiac Catheterization; Pacemaker, Artificial; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37882609
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euad316 -
Cureus Sep 2023An increase in cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and undoubtedly the complications brought on by these devices coincide with an increase in... (Review)
Review
An increase in cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and undoubtedly the complications brought on by these devices coincide with an increase in cardiovascular disorders, particularly heart rhythm abnormalities. The safest procedure to extract these devices is transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Thus, this systematic review aimed to summarize the possibility of success rates and the common complications that could arise during the surgery. Full-text publications in PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), and ScienceDirect were used in this study, which was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Seventeen studies were reviewed for this systematic review after being screened by title, abstract, full-text availability, and quality appraisal assessment. Heart and vascular tears, along with tricuspid regurgitation (TR), are common adverse events. Pulmonary embolism, hemothorax, hemopericardium, and ghost appearance in echo are less common consequences. In addition, the longer the dwelling time of the leads, the greater the chance of infection due to an increase in lead adhesions and fibrous tissue that has made the procedure unsafe as time passes. However, we concluded that TLE is a successful method across all age groups with an excellent probability of clinical and procedural success in a majority of studies.
PubMed: 37829955
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45048 -
International Journal of Cardiology.... Oct 2023
PubMed: 37680548
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2023.101258 -
Cureus Aug 2023Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a condition that accounts for a high percentage of cardiovascular fatalities, with ventricular tachyarrhythmias being the most common... (Review)
Review
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a condition that accounts for a high percentage of cardiovascular fatalities, with ventricular tachyarrhythmias being the most common cause. There are signs and symptoms of SCD that occur spontaneously without any warning and are deadly. Despite preventative efforts focusing on the use of subcutaneous implanted cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICD) in the highest-risk population categories, a high number of SCDs occur in the normal population and in people who do not have a documented cardiac condition. Therefore, primary prevention for SCD should be a more viable strategy for the general population, considering measures in the form of preventive medicine such as knowing more about any genetic predisposition, family history of any fatal arrhythmia, continuous surveillance after any syncope with unknown causes, etc. However, little data about SCD risk factors are known in comparison with other well-known diseases like ischemic heart disease and stroke. In search of medical databases for relevant medical literature, we looked at PubMed/Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Thirteen publications were discovered after the papers were located, assessed, and qualifying criteria were applied. The finished articles were done to give an overview of SCD. Some others have shown that the major predisposition for SCD is related to the male gender, which increases the incidence if they have a family history of SCD. We described the importance of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) as a comorbid condition. Patients with S-ICD and young athletes with a history of ventricular arrhythmia showed us that the predisposition for SCD can be higher than in the normal population. Based on the above, we concluded that more study is required to establish the most important approach for each of the risk factors mentioned in this systematic review in order to apply them in daily practice and have more knowledge about how to apply preventive and therapeutic medicine to the population at risk and the ones that already develop the disease.
PubMed: 37664320
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42859 -
Global Heart 2023Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and using an automated external defibrillator (AED) can improve out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival. However, bystander...
Factors and Barriers on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Automated External Defibrillator Willingness to Use among the Community: A 2016-2021 Systematic Review and Data Synthesis.
BACKGROUND
Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and using an automated external defibrillator (AED) can improve out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival. However, bystander CPR and AED rates remained consistently low. The goal of this systematic review was to assess factors influencing community willingness to perform CPR and use an AED for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survival (OHCA) victims, as well as its barriers.
METHODS
The review processes (PROSPERO: CRD42021257851) were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) review protocol; formulation of review questions; systematic search strategy based on identification, screening, and eligibility using established databases including Scopus, Web of Science, and Medline Complete via EBSCOhost; quality appraisal; and data extraction and analysis. There is identification of full-text journal articles that were published between 2016 and 2021 and written in English.
RESULTS
Of the final 13 articles, there are six identified factors associated with willingness to perform CPR and use an AED, including socio-demographics, training, attitudes, perceived norms, self-efficacy, and legal obligation. Younger age, men, higher level of education, employed, married, having trained in CPR and AED in the previous 5 years, having received CPR education on four or more occasions, having a positive attitude and perception toward CPR and AED, having confidence to perform CPR and to apply an AED, and legal liability protection under emergency medical service law were reasons why one would be more likely to indicate a willingness to perform CPR and use an AED. The most reported barriers were fear of litigation and injuring a victim.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a need to empower all the contributing factors and reduce the barrier by emphasizing the importance of CPR and AEDs. The role played by all stakeholders should be strengthened to ensure the success of intervention programs, and indirectly, that can reduce morbidity and mortality among the community from OHCA.
Topics: Child, Preschool; Humans; Male; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Databases, Factual; Educational Status; Emergency Medical Services; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
PubMed: 37649652
DOI: 10.5334/gh.1255 -
Resuscitation Plus Sep 2023Worldwide, bystander CPR rates are low; one effective way to increase these rates is to train schoolchildren; however, the most effective way to train them is currently... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Worldwide, bystander CPR rates are low; one effective way to increase these rates is to train schoolchildren; however, the most effective way to train them is currently unknown.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, evaluated whether CPR training for schoolchildren, using innovative teaching modalities (nonpractical, self, or peer-training) versus standard instructor-led training, resulted in higher quality CPR, self-confidence and short-term (≤3 months post-training) or long-term (>3 months post-training) retention of CPR skills.
RESULTS
From 9793 citations, 96 studies published between 1975 and 2022 (44 RCTs and 52 before/after studies) were included. There were 43,754 students, average age of 11.5 ± 0.9 (range 5.9-17.6) and 49.2% male. Only 13 RCTs compared practical vs. nonpractical training (n = 5), self- vs. instructor-led training (n = 7) or peer- vs. instructor-led training (n = 5). The observed statistically significant differences in mean depth and rate of compressions between children with hands-on practical training and those without were not clinically relevant. Regardless of training modality, compression depth was consistently suboptimal. No differences were observed in CPR skills immediately or ≤ 3 months post-training, between children who were self- or peer-trained vs. instructor-led. Due to lack of data, we were unable to evaluate the impact of these novel training modalities on student self-confidence.
CONCLUSION
Although innovative training modalities are equally effective to instructor-led training when teaching schoolchildren CPR, compression depth was frequently suboptimal. Recommendations on standardized training and evaluation methods are necessary to understand the best ways to train children.
PubMed: 37638097
DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100439 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2023Risk stratification based mainly on the impairment of left ventricular ejection fraction has limited performance in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Risk stratification based mainly on the impairment of left ventricular ejection fraction has limited performance in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM). Evidence is rapidly growing for the impact of myocardial scar identified by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) on cardiovascular events. We aim to assess the prognostic value of LGE on long-term arrhythmic and mortality outcomes in patients with NIDCM. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to January 21, 2022. Studies that included disease-specific subpopulations of NIDCM were excluded. Data were independently extracted and combined via random-effects meta-analysis using a generic inverse-variance strategy. Data from 60 studies comprising 15,217 patients were analyzed with a 3-year median follow-up. The presence of LGE was associated with major ventricular arrhythmic events (pooled OR: 3.99; 95% CI 3.08, 5.16), all-cause mortality (pooled OR: 2.14; 95% CI 1.81, 2.52), cardiovascular mortality (pooled OR 2.83; 95% CI 2.23, 3.60), and heart failure hospitalization (pooled OR: 2.53; 95% CI 1.78, 3.59). Real-world evidence suggests that the presence of LGE on CMR was a strong predictor of adverse long-term outcomes in patients with NIDCM. Scar assessment should be incorporated as a primary determinant in the patient selection criteria for primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement.
Topics: Humans; Cardiomyopathy, Dilated; Gadolinium; Cicatrix; Contrast Media; Stroke Volume; Ventricular Function, Left; Magnetic Resonance Imaging
PubMed: 37612359
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-41087-4 -
Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology... Sep 2023Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED) and vector-change defibrillation (VCD) have been suggested to enhance clinical outcomes for patients with ventricular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Double sequential external defibrillation (DSED) and vector-change defibrillation (VCD) have been suggested to enhance clinical outcomes for patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF) refractory of standard defibrillation (SD). Therefore, this network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy of DSED, VCD, and SD for refractory VF.
METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, WOS, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through November 15th, 2022. R software netmeta and netrank package (R version 4.2.0) and meta-insight software were used to pool dichotomous outcomes using odds ratio (OR) presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Our protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022378533.
RESULTS
We included seven studies with a total of 1632 participants. DSED was similar to SD in survival to hospital discharge (OR: 1.14 with 95% CI [0.55, 2.83]), favorable neurological outcome (modified Rankin scale ≤2 or cerebral performance category ≤2) (OR: 1.35 with 95% CI [0.46, 3.99]), and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (OR: 0.81 with 95% CI [0.43; 1.5]). In addition, VCD was similar to SD in survival to hospital discharge (OR: 1.12 with 95% CI [0.27, 4.57]), favorable neurological outcome (OR: 1.01 with 95% CI [0.18, 5.75]), and ROSC (OR: 0.88 with 95% CI [0.24; 3.15]).
CONCLUSION
Double sequential external defibrillation and VCD were not associated with enhanced outcomes in patients with refractory VF out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, compared to SD. However, the current evidence is still inconclusive, warranting further large-scale RCTs.
Topics: Humans; Electric Countershock; Ventricular Fibrillation; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Network Meta-Analysis; Electrocardiography; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
PubMed: 37482919
DOI: 10.1111/anec.13075 -
Current Heart Failure Reports Oct 2023This systematic review aims to summarise clustering studies in heart failure (HF) and guide future clinical trial design and implementation in routine clinical practice. (Review)
Review
REVIEW PURPOSE
This systematic review aims to summarise clustering studies in heart failure (HF) and guide future clinical trial design and implementation in routine clinical practice.
FINDINGS
34 studies were identified (n = 19 in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)). There was significant heterogeneity invariables and techniques used. However, 149/165 described clusters could be assigned to one of nine phenotypes: 1) young, low comorbidity burden; 2) metabolic; 3) cardio-renal; 4) atrial fibrillation (AF); 5) elderly female AF; 6) hypertensive-comorbidity; 7) ischaemic-male; 8) valvular disease; and 9) devices. There was room for improvement on important methodological topics for all clustering studies such as external validation and transparency of the modelling process. The large overlap between the phenotypes of the clustering studies shows that clustering is a robust approach for discovering clinically distinct phenotypes. However, future studies should invest in a phenotype model that can be implemented in routine clinical practice and future clinical trial design. HF = heart failure, EF = ejection fraction, HFpEF = heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, HFrEF = heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, CKD = chronic kidney disease, AF = atrial fibrillation, IHD = ischaemic heart disease, CAD = coronary artery disease, ICD = implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, CRT = cardiac resynchronization therapy, NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide, BMI = Body Mass Index, COPD = Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
PubMed: 37477803
DOI: 10.1007/s11897-023-00615-z -
Resuscitation Plus Jun 2023The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, in collaboration with drowning researchers from around the world, aimed to review the evidence addressing seven key... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, in collaboration with drowning researchers from around the world, aimed to review the evidence addressing seven key resuscitation interventions: 1) immediate versus delayed resuscitation; (2) compression first versus ventilation first strategy; (3) compression-only CPR versus standard CPR (compressions and ventilations); (4) ventilation with and without equipment; (5) oxygen administration prior to hospital arrival; (6) automated external defibrillation first versus cardiopulmonary resuscitation first strategy; (7) public access defibrillation programmes.
METHODS
The review included studies relating to adults and children who had sustained a cardiac arrest following drowning with control groups and reported patient outcomes. Searches were run from database inception through to April 2023. The following databases were searched Ovid MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The findings are reported as a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Three studies were included for two of the seven interventions (2,451 patients). No randomised controlled trials were identified. A retrospective observational study reported in-water resuscitation with rescue breaths improved patient outcomes compared to delayed resuscitation on land ( = 46 patients, very low certainty of evidence). The two observational studies ( = 2,405 patients), comparing compression-only with standard resuscitation, reported no difference for most outcomes. A statistically higher rate of survival to hospital discharge was reported for the standard resuscitation group in one of these studies (29.7% versus 18.1%, adjusted odds ratio 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.01-2.36) (very low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSION
The key finding of this systematic review is the paucity of evidence, with control groups, to inform treatment guidelines for resuscitation in drowning.
PubMed: 37424769
DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2023.100406