-
Cardiovascular Diabetology Aug 2020Type 2 diabetes is closely related to an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL). Whether sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Type 2 diabetes is closely related to an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL). Whether sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can attenuate AF/AFL progression remains unclear.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov) from their inception to January 2020 for trials evaluating the AF outcomes of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes. The data search and extraction were conducted with a standardized data form and any conflicts were resolved by consensus. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for binary variables, and the weighed mean differences (WMDs) with the standard deviation (SDs) were applied for continuous variables.
RESULTS
We included data from 16 identified trials consisting of 38,335 patients with type 2 diabetes. Incorporated data demonstrated that compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced AF/AFL (RR: 0.76; 95% CI 0.65-0.90; p = 0.001) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.83-0.99; p = 0.03). AF/AFL reductions were not modified by age, body weight, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), or systolic blood pressure (SBP) at baseline (all p-interactions > 0.3). SGLT2 inhibitors also significantly reduced heart failure events (RR: 0.73; 95% CI 0.64-0.84; p < 0.00001), HbA1c (WMD: - 0.62%; 95% CI - 0.89 to - 0.34; p < 0.00001), body weight (WMD: - 2.12 kg; 95% CI - 2.91 to - 1.34; p < 0.00001), SBP (WMD: - 3.34 mmHg; 95% CI - 4.12 to - 2.56; p < 0.00001), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD: - 1.11 mmHg; 95% CI - 1.62 to - 0.60; p < 0.0001). Of note, cerebrovascular events and myocardial infarction did not increase in patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors.
CONCLUSION
SGLT2 inhibitors may confer a specific AF/AFL-reduction benefit in the susceptible type 2 diabetes population, regardless of age, body weight, HbA1c, and systolic blood pressure at baseline. Such an AF/AFL-reduction benefit may be partly attributed to pharmacological effects on reductions in HbA1c, body weight, blood pressure, and the occurrence of heart failure.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Biomarkers; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32847602
DOI: 10.1186/s12933-020-01105-5 -
World Journal of Cardiology Jun 2020Cardiac catheterization is among the most performed medical procedures in the modern era. There were sporadic reports indicating that cardiac arrhythmias are common...
BACKGROUND
Cardiac catheterization is among the most performed medical procedures in the modern era. There were sporadic reports indicating that cardiac arrhythmias are common during cardiac catheterization, and there are risks of developing serious and potentially life-threatening arrhythmias, such as sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF) and high-grade conduction disturbances such as complete heart block (CHB), requiring immediate interventions. However, there is lack of systematic overview of these conditions.
AIM
To systematically review existing literature and gain better understanding of the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias during cardiac catheterization, and their impact on outcomes, as well as potential approaches to minimize this risk.
METHODS
We applied a combination of terms potentially used in reports describing various cardiac arrhythmias during common cardiac catheterization procedures to systematically search PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, as well as references of full-length articles.
RESULTS
During right heart catheterization (RHC), the incidence of atrial arrhythmias (premature atrial complexes, atrial fibrillation and flutter) was low (< 1%); these arrhythmias were usually transient and self-limited. RHC associated with the development of a new RBBB at a rate of 0.1%-0.3% in individuals with normal conduction system but up to 6.3% in individuals with pre-existing left bundle branch block. These patients may require temporary pacing due to transient CHB. Isolated premature ventricular complexes or non-sustained VT are common during RHC (up to 20% of cases). Sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VT and/or VF) requiring either withdrawal of catheter or cardioversion occurred infrequently (1%-1.3%). During left heart catheterizations (LHC), the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias has declined significantly over the last few decades, from 1.1% historically to 0.1% currently. The overall reported rate of VT/VF in diagnostic LHC and coronary angiography is 0.8%. The risk of VT/VF was higher during percutaneous coronary interventions for stable coronary artery disease (1.1%) and even higher for patients with acute myocardial infarctions (4.1%-4.3%). Intravenous adenosine and papaverine bolus for fractional flow reserve measurement, as well as intracoronary imaging using optical coherence tomography have been reported to induce VF. Although uncommon, LHC and coronary angiography were also reported to induce conduction disturbances including CHB.
CONCLUSION
Cardiac arrhythmias are common and potentially serious complications of cardiac catheterization procedures, and it demands constant vigilance and readiness to intervene during procedures.
PubMed: 32774779
DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v12.i6.269 -
Journal of Arrhythmia Jun 2020This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the latest evidence on the use of renal denervation (RDN) + pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) compared to PVI alone...
Efficacy and safety of renal denervation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation and hypertension-Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
INTRODUCTION
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the latest evidence on the use of renal denervation (RDN) + pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) compared to PVI alone for treating atrial fibrillation (AF) with hypertension.
METHODS
A systematic literature search from several electronic databases was performed up until January 2020. The primary outcome was AF recurrence defined as AF/atrial flutter (AFL)/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 seconds at 12-month follow-up and the secondary outcome was procedure-related complications.
RESULTS
There were 568 subjects from five studies. AF recurrence was 90/280 (32.1%) in the RDN + PVI group and 142/274 (51.8%) in the PVI group. RDN + PVI was associated with a lower incidence of AF recurrence (RR 0.62 [0.51, 076], < .001; : 0%). Pooled analysis of HR showed that RDN + PVI was associated with reduced AF recurrence (HR 0.51 [0.38, 0.70], < .001; : 0%). Complications were 7/241 (2.9%) in the RDN + PVI group and 8/237 (3.4%) in the PVI group. The rate of complications between the groups was similar (RR 0.87 [0.33, 2.29], = .77; : 0%). In the subgroup analysis of paroxysmal AF, RDN + PVI was shown to reduce AF recurrence (RR 0.64 [0.49, 0.82], < .001; : 0% and HR 0.56 [0.38, 0.82], = .003; : 0%) compared to PVI alone. RDN + PVI has a moderate certainty of evidence in the reducing AF recurrence with an absolute reduction of 197 fewer per 1000 (from 254 fewer to 124 fewer).
CONCLUSION
RDN in addition to PVI, is associated with reduced 12-month AF recurrence and similar procedure-related complications compared to PVI alone.
PubMed: 32528562
DOI: 10.1002/joa3.12353 -
Frontiers in Genetics 2019Short QT syndrome (SQTS) is a rare syndrome and affects different types of genes. However, data on differences of clinical profile and outcome of different SQTS types...
BACKGROUND
Short QT syndrome (SQTS) is a rare syndrome and affects different types of genes. However, data on differences of clinical profile and outcome of different SQTS types are sparse.
METHODS
We conducted a pooled analysis of 110 SQTS patients. Patients have been diagnosed between 2000 and 2017 at our institution (n = 12) and revealed using a literature review (n = 98). 29 studies were identified by analysing systematic data bases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Libary, Cinahl).
RESULTS
67 patients with genotype positive SQTS origin and 43 patients with genotype negative origin were found. A significant difference is documented between the sex with a higher predominance of male in genotype negative SQTS patients and predominance of females in genotype positive SQTS patients (male 52% versus 84%, female 45% versus 14%; p = 0.0016). No relevant difference of their median age (genotype positive 27 ± 19 versus genotype negative 29 ± 15; p = 0.48) was found. Asymptomatic patients and patients reporting symptoms such as syncope, sudden cardiac death, atrial flutter and ventricular fibrillation documented in both groups were similar except atrial fibrillation (genotype positive 19% versus genotype negative 0%; p = 0.0055). The QTc interval was not significantly different in both groups (genotype positive 315 ± 32 versus genotype negative 320 ± 19; p = 0.30). The treatments (medical treatment and ICD implantation) in both groups were comparable. Electrophysiology studies were not significantly higher documented in patients with genotype positive and negative origin (24% versus 9%; p = 0.075). Events at follow up such as VT, VF, and SCD were not higher presented in patients with genotype positive (13% versus 9%) (p = 0.25). 54% of genotype positive SQTS patients showed SQTS 1 followed by STQS 2 (21%) and SQTS 3 (10%).
CONCLUSIONS
The long-term risk of a malignant arrhythmic event is not higher in patients with genotype positive. However, patients with genotype positive present themselves more often with AF with a female predominance. Also, other events at follow up such as syncope, atrial flutter and palpitation were not significantly higher (9% versus 0%; p = 0.079).
PubMed: 32010184
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.01312 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and...
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in an unselected population remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update, and assesses the evidence in non-cardiac surgery only.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. If studies included surgery with different types of anaesthesia, we included them if 70% participants, or at least 100 participants, received general anaesthesia. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 83 RCTs with 14,967 participants; we found no quasi-randomized studies. All participants were undergoing non-cardiac surgery, and types of surgery ranged from low to high risk. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, esmolol, landiolol, nadolol, atenolol, labetalol, oxprenolol, and pindolol. In nine studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in most studies, it was intraoperatively, but in 18 studies it was before surgery, in six postoperatively, one multi-arm study included groups of different timings, and one study did not report timing of drug administration. Overall, we found that more than half of the studies did not sufficiently report methods used for randomization. All studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. Only two studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. In six studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period.The evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days was uncertain; based on the risk of death in the control group of 25 per 1000, the effect with beta-blockers was between two fewer and 13 more per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.54; 16 studies, 11,446 participants; low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction by 13 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87; 12 studies, 10,520 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 6 studies, 9460 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.47; 5 studies, 476 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation or flutter by 26 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; 9 studies, 9080 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia by 55 more incidences per 1000 (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.56; 49 studies, 12,239 participants; low-certainty evidence), and hypotension by 44 more per 1000 (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.51; 49 studies, 12,304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).We downgraded the certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations; some studies had high risks of bias, and the effects were sometimes altered when we excluded studies with a standard care control group (including only placebo-controlled trials showed an increase in early mortality and cerebrovascular events with beta-blockers). We also downgraded for inconsistency; one large, well-conducted, international study found a reduction in myocardial infarction, and an increase in cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality, when beta-blockers were used, but other studies showed no evidence of a difference. We could not explain the reason for the inconsistency in the evidence for ventricular arrhythmias, and we also downgraded this outcome for imprecision because we found few studies with few participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for early all-cause mortality with perioperative beta-blockers was uncertain. We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events or ventricular arrhythmias, and the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was low and very low. We found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarctions. However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia (low-certainty evidence) and probably increase hypotension (moderate-certainty evidence). Further evidence from large placebo-controlled trials is likely to increase the certainty of these findings, and we recommend the assessment of impact on quality of life. We found 18 studies awaiting classification; inclusion of these studies in future updates may also increase the certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Anesthesia, General; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Cause of Death; Humans; Hypotension; Morbidity; Myocardial Infarction; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 31556094
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013438 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and...
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in unselected patients remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update and assesses the evidence in cardiac surgery only.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing cardiac surgery. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies with 7768 participants; six studies were quasi-randomized and the remaining were RCTs. All participants were undergoing cardiac surgery, and in most studies, at least some of the participants were previously taking beta-blockers. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, sotalol, esmolol, landiolol, acebutolol, timolol, carvedilol, nadolol, and atenolol. In twelve studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in nine studies this was before surgery, in 20 studies during surgery, and in the remaining studies beta-blockers were started postoperatively. Overall, we found that most studies did not report sufficient details for us to adequately assess risk of bias. In particular, few studies reported methods used to randomize participants to groups. In some studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period, and all studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. No studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. We judged 68% studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain.Study authors reported few deaths (7 per 1000 in both the intervention and control groups), and we found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.90; 29 studies, 4099 participants). For myocardial infarctions, we found no evidence of a difference in events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.52; 25 studies, 3946 participants; low-certainty evidence). Few study authors reported cerebrovascular events, and the evidence was uncertain (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.67; 5 studies, 1471 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Based on a control risk of 54 per 1000, we found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce episodes of ventricular arrhythmias by 32 episodes per 1000 (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63; 12 studies, 2296 participants). For atrial fibrillation or flutter, there may be 163 fewer incidences with beta-blockers, based on a control risk of 327 incidences per 1000 (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59; 40 studies, 5650 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence for bradycardia and hypotension was less certain. We found that beta-blockers may make little or no difference to bradycardia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.91; 12 studies, 1640 participants; low-certainty evidence), or hypotension (RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.80; 10 studies, 1538 participants; low-certainty evidence).We used GRADE to downgrade the certainty of evidence. Owing to studies at high risk of bias in at least one domain, we downgraded each outcome for study limitations. Based on effect size calculations in the previous review, we found an insufficient number of participants in all outcomes (except atrial fibrillation) and, for some outcomes, we noted a wide confidence interval; therefore, we also downgraded outcomes owing to imprecision. The evidence for atrial fibrillation and length of hospital stay had a moderate level of statistical heterogeneity which we could not explain, and we, therefore, downgraded these outcomes for inconsistency.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence of a difference in early all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, hypotension and bradycardia. However, there may be a reduction in atrial fibrillation and ventricular arrhythmias when beta-blockers are used. A larger sample size is likely to increase the certainty of this evidence. Four studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of this review.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Humans; Hypotension; Morbidity; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Ischemia; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31544227
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013435 -
Bioscience Reports May 2019To evaluate myocardial injury in Atrial flutter (AFL) patients undergoing Radiofrequency ablation (RF) and cryoablation (CRYO) treatments. We conducted a systematic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
To evaluate myocardial injury in Atrial flutter (AFL) patients undergoing Radiofrequency ablation (RF) and cryoablation (CRYO) treatments. We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases. All relevant clinical trials (up to October 2018) on myocardial injury in AFL patients were retrieved and subsequent results analyzed with a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model. A total of eight clinical trials with a sample size of 644 patients, were identified and incorporated in the present study. The results indicated no significant differences in creatine kinase (CK) levels (mean difference (MD) = 62.74, =0.46; 4-6 h and MD = 30.73, =0.49; 12-24 h after ablation), creatine kinase MB(CK-MB) levels (MD = 17.32, =0.25; 12-24 h post-ablation), troponinI (TnI) levels (MD = 0.12, =0.08; 6 h after ablation), and troponin T (TnT) levels (MD = 0.30, =0.08; 4-6 h post-ablation) between the two treatment approaches. However, patients receiving CRYO xhibited higher levels of CK (MD = 179.54, =0.04; tested immediately after the procedure), CK-MB (MD = 10.08, =0.004) 4-6 h after ablation, and TnT (MD = 0.19, =0.002) tested the next morning. Moreover, those patients had a significantly reduced pain perception (odds ratio (OR) = 0.05, =0.04) compared with those in the RF group. These results indicate that CRYO in comparison with RF significantly increases myocardial injury in AFL patients. Additionally, it decreases pain perception during the procedure. Further large-sampled studies are needed to support these findings.
Topics: Atrial Flutter; Biomarkers; Catheter Ablation; Cryosurgery; Heart Injuries; Humans; Models, Cardiovascular; Myocardium; Pain; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 31076543
DOI: 10.1042/BSR20182251 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019General anaesthesia combined with epidural analgesia may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. However, use of epidural analgesia for cardiac surgery is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
General anaesthesia combined with epidural analgesia may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. However, use of epidural analgesia for cardiac surgery is controversial due to a theoretical increased risk of epidural haematoma associated with systemic heparinization. This review was published in 2013, and it was updated in 2019.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the impact of perioperative epidural analgesia in adults undergoing cardiac surgery, with or without cardiopulmonary bypass, on perioperative mortality and cardiac, pulmonary, or neurological morbidity.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in November 2018, and two trial registers up to February 2019, together with references and relevant conference abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults undergoing any type of cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia and comparing epidural analgesia versus another modality of postoperative pain treatment. The primary outcome was mortality.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 69 trials with 4860 participants: 2404 given epidural analgesia and 2456 receiving comparators (systemic analgesia, peripheral nerve block, intrapleural analgesia, or wound infiltration). The mean (or median) age of participants varied between 43.5 years and 74.6 years. Surgeries performed were coronary artery bypass grafting or valvular procedures and surgeries for congenital heart disease. We judged that no trials were at low risk of bias for all domains, and that all trials were at unclear/high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel taking care of study participants.Epidural analgesia versus systemic analgesiaTrials show there may be no difference in mortality at 0 to 30 days (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01; 38 trials with 3418 participants; low-quality evidence), and there may be a reduction in myocardial infarction at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.00; 26 trials with 2713 participants; low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia may reduce the risk of 0 to 30 days respiratory depression (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.01; 21 trials with 1736 participants; low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in risk of pneumonia at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.01; 10 trials with 1107 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and epidural analgesia probably reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter at 0 to 2 weeks (RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; 18 trials with 2431 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in cerebrovascular accidents at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 18 trials with 2232 participants; very low-quality evidence), and none of the included trials reported any epidural haematoma events at 0 to 30 days (53 trials with 3982 participants; low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia probably reduces the duration of tracheal intubation by the equivalent of 2.4 hours (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.78, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.55; 40 trials with 3353 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia reduces pain at rest and on movement up to 72 hours after surgery. At six to eight hours, researchers noted a reduction in pain, equivalent to a reduction of 1 point on a 0 to 10 pain scale (SMD -1.35, 95% CI -1.98 to -0.72; 10 trials with 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia may increase risk of hypotension (RD 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.33; 17 trials with 870 participants; low-quality evidence) but may make little or no difference in the need for infusion of inotropics or vasopressors (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; 23 trials with 1821 participants; low-quality evidence).Epidural analgesia versus other comparatorsFewer studies compared epidural analgesia versus peripheral nerve blocks (four studies), intrapleural analgesia (one study), and wound infiltration (one study). Investigators provided no data for pulmonary complications, atrial fibrillation or flutter, or for any of the comparisons. When reported, other outcomes for these comparisons (mortality, myocardial infarction, neurological complications, duration of tracheal intubation, pain, and haemodynamic support) were uncertain due to the small numbers of trials and participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with systemic analgesia, epidural analgesia may reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, respiratory depression, and atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, as well as the duration of tracheal intubation and pain, in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. There may be little or no difference in mortality, pneumonia, and epidural haematoma, and effects on cerebrovascular accident are uncertain. Evidence is insufficient to show the effects of epidural analgesia compared with peripheral nerve blocks, intrapleural analgesia, or wound infiltration.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, General; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Coronary Artery Bypass; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration Disorders; Stroke
PubMed: 30821845
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006715.pub3 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2019The prevalence and incidence of atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL) in patients with human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) infection have been poorly...
The prevalence and incidence of atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL) in patients with human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) infection have been poorly investigated. We performed a systematic review using PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and screening of references, searching for clinical studies reporting on the association between HIV-1 infection and AF/AFL. We also summarized the main interactions of antiretroviral agents with antithrombotic and antiarrhythmic drugs. We found a prevalence of AF/AFL ranging from 2.0% to 5.13% in patients with HIV-1, with an incidence rate of 3.6/1000 person-years. Low CD4+ count (<200-250 cells ml ) and high viral load were predictors of AF/AFL. Regarding drugs interactions, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, integrase inhibitor and maraviroc have the lowest interactions with oral anticoagulants. Among anticoagulants, dabigatran presents the most favourable profile. Most of antiarrhythmic drugs interact with protease inhibitors, with beta blockers and diltiazem having fewer interactions. The few studies available suggest a non-negligible prevalence of AF/AFL in patients with HIV-1 infection. Awareness of potential interactions with anticoagulation and antiarrhythmic drugs is needed to offer optimal management in this population.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Anti-HIV Agents; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Drug Interactions; HIV Infections; HIV-1; Humans; Incidence; Prevalence; Risk Factors; Viral Load
PubMed: 30575989
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13837 -
Journal of Atrial Fibrillation 2018Management of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) in the emergency department (ED) varies greatly, and there are currently no United States guidelines to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Management of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) in the emergency department (ED) varies greatly, and there are currently no United States guidelines to guide management with regard to patient disposition after ED treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the literature for decision aids to guide disposition of patients with AF/AFLin the ED, and assess potential outcomes associated with different management strategies in the ED.
METHODS AND RESULTS
A systematic review was done using PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE, combining the search terms "Atrial Fibrillation", "Atrial Flutter", "Emergency Medicine", "Emergency Service", and "Emergency Treatment". After removal of duplicates, 754 articles were identified. After initial screening of titles and abstracts, 69full text articles were carefully reviewed and 34 articles were ultimately included in the study based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles were grouped into four main categories: decision aids and outcome predictors, electrical cardioversion-based protocols, antiarrhythmic-based protocols, and general management protocols.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review is the first study to our knowledge to evaluate the optimal management of symptomatic AF/AFLin the ED with a direct impact on ED disposition. There are several viable management strategies that can result in safe discharge from the ED in the right patient population, and decision aids can be utilized to guide selection of appropriate patients for discharge.
PubMed: 30455832
DOI: 10.4022/jafib.1810