-
Journal of the American College of... Feb 2022Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), a relatively common, globally distributed, and often inherited primary cardiac disease, has now transformed into a contemporary highly...
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), a relatively common, globally distributed, and often inherited primary cardiac disease, has now transformed into a contemporary highly treatable condition with effective options that alter natural history along specific personalized adverse pathways at all ages. HCM patients with disease-related complications benefit from: matured risk stratification in which major markers reliably select patients for prophylactic defibrillators and prevention of arrhythmic sudden death; low risk to high benefit surgical myectomy (with percutaneous alcohol ablation a selective alternative) that reverses progressive heart failure caused by outflow obstruction; anticoagulation prophylaxis that prevents atrial fibrillation-related embolic stroke and ablation techniques that decrease the frequency of paroxysmal episodes; and occasionally, heart transplant for end-stage nonobstructive patients. Those innovations have substantially improved outcomes by significantly reducing morbidity and HCM-related mortality to 0.5%/y. Palliative pharmacological strategies with currently available negative inotropic drugs can control symptoms over the short-term in some patients, but generally do not alter long-term clinical course. Notably, a substantial proportion of HCM patients (largely those identified without outflow obstruction) experience a stable/benign course without major interventions. The expert panel has critically appraised all available data and presented management insights and recommendations with concise principles for clinical decision-making.
Topics: Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Humans
PubMed: 35086661
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.021 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jan 2023Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia associated with high morbidity and mortality. AF treatment is guided by a patient-provider risk-benefit... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia associated with high morbidity and mortality. AF treatment is guided by a patient-provider risk-benefit discussion regarding drug versus ablation or combination. Thermal ablation has a high rate of adverse events compared to pulsed field ablation (PFA). In this systematic review, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of PFA.
METHODS
The electronic search for relevant articles in English was completed in PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane library, Scopus, and Embase databases till July 2022. The screening was completed via the use of Covidence software. The risk of bias assessment and data extraction from the included studies was performed, and the narrative synthesis was performed accordingly.
RESULTS
A total of six studies were selected for review and 1897 patients receiving PFA were involved in these studies. Our review was focused on pulmonary vein isolation success, major adverse events, and arrhythmia recurrence. Successful pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) was completed in 100% of cases except in two studies. In one of them, six out of seven patients (86%) in the epicardial cohort had successful PVI. In the MANIFEST-PF survey, the acute PVI success rate was 99.9%. The major complications were rare and included pericardial tamponade, vascular complications requiring surgery, and stroke. The atrial arrhythmia recurrence was higher in the thermal group than in the PFA group (39% vs. 11%).
CONCLUSIONS
The success rate of PVI by PFA is high, and major adverse events are low. PFA is found to decrease the recurrence of atrial arrhythmia compared to thermal ablation. Substantial randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to validate the efficacy and safety of PFA over conventional methods.
PubMed: 36675649
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12020719 -
JAMA Cardiology Jun 2021Early rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF) with either antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) or catheter ablation has been reported to improve cardiovascular outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Early rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF) with either antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) or catheter ablation has been reported to improve cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual care; however, the optimal therapeutic modality to achieve early rhythm control is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the safety and efficacy of AF ablation as first-line therapy when compared with AADs in patients with paroxysmal AF.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and various major scientific conference sessions from January 1, 2000, through November 23, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in English that had at least 12 months of follow-up and compared clinical outcomes of ablation vs AADs as first-line therapy in adults with AF. The quality of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Six RCTs met inclusion criteria, including 1212 patients.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two investigators independently extracted data. Reporting was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) guidelines. Analysis was performed using a random-effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method, and results are presented as 95% CIs.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Main outcomes were safety and efficacy of AF ablation as first-line therapy when compared with AADs. Trials were evaluated as having low risk of selection and attrition biases, high risk of performance bias, and with unclear risk for detection biases due to unblinding and open-label designs.
RESULTS
A total of 6 RCTs involving 1212 patients with AF were included (609 were randomized to AF ablation and 603 to drug therapy; mean [SD] age, 56 [11] years). Compared with AADs, catheter ablation use was associated with reductions in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (32.3% vs 53%; risk ratio [RR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.74; P < .001; I2 = 40%), with a number needed to treat with ablation to prevent 1 arrhythmia of 5. Use of ablation was also associated with reduced symptomatic atrial arrhythmia (11.8% vs 26.4%; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.27-0.72; P = .001; I2 = 54%) and hospitalization (5.6% vs 18.7%; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19-0.53; P < .001) with no significant difference in serious adverse events between the groups (4.2% vs 2.8%; RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.81-2.85; P = .19).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials including first-line therapy of patients with paroxysmal AF, catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drugs was associated with reductions in recurrence of atrial arrhythmias and hospitalizations, with no difference in major adverse events.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Catheter Ablation; Hospitalization; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33909022
DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2021.0852 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower-limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower-limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment options for GSV incompetence include surgery (also known as high ligation and stripping), laser and radiofrequency ablation, and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Newer treatments include cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation, and endovenous steam ablation. These techniques avoid the need for a general anaesthetic, and may result in fewer complications and improved quality of life (QoL). These treatments should be compared to inform decisions on treatment for varicosities in the GSV. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and high ligation and stripping (HL/S) for the treatment of varicosities of the great saphenous vein (GSV).
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 November 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) treating participants for varicosities of the GSV using EVLA, RFA, EVSA, UGFS, cyanoacrylate glue, MOCA or HL/S. Key outcomes of interest are technical success, recurrence, complications and QoL.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 11 new RCTs for this update. Therefore, we included 24 RCTs with 5135 participants. Duration of follow-up ranged from five weeks to eight years. Five comparisons included single trials. For comparisons with more than one trial, we could only pool data for 'technical success' and 'recurrence' due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and time points reported. All trials had some risk of bias concerns. Here we report the clinically most relevant comparisons. EVLA versus RFA Technical success was comparable up to five years (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; 5 studies, 780 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.41; 1 study, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported recurrence, showing no clear difference at three years (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.99; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence), but a benefit for RFA may be seen at five years (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.06; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). EVLA versus UGFS Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 6.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 38.27; 3 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 6.47, 95% CI 2.60 to 16.10; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in recurrence up to three years and at five years (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.36; 2 studies, 443 participants; and OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.87; 2 studies, 418 participants; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). EVLA versus HL/S Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; 6 studies, 1051 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in technical success was seen at five years and beyond (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; 5 studies, 874 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrence was comparable within three years and at 5 years (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1459 participants; and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.76; 7 studies, 1267 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). RFA versus MOCA There was no clear difference in technical success (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.06 to 54.15; 3 studies, 435 participants; low-certainty evidence), or recurrence (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.81; 3 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term data are not available. RFA versus HL/S No clear difference in technical success was detected up to five years (OR 5.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 50.81; 2 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.69; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in recurrence was detected up to three years (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.51; 4 studies, 546 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but a possible long-term benefit for RFA was seen (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.75; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). UGFS versus HL/S Meta-analysis showed a possible benefit for HL/S compared with UGFS in technical success up to five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; 4 studies, 954 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30; 3 studies, 525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear difference was detected in recurrence up to three years (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.77; 3 studies, 822 participants; low-certainty evidence), and after five years (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.71; 3 studies, 639 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were generally low for all interventions, but due to different definitions and time points, we were unable to draw conclusions (very-low certainty evidence). Similarly, most studies evaluated QoL but used different questionnaires at variable time points. Rates of QoL improvement were comparable between interventions at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our conclusions are limited due to the relatively small number of studies for each comparison and differences in outcome definitions and time points reported. Technical success was comparable between most modalities. EVLA may offer improved technical success compared to UGFS or HL/S. HL/S may have improved technical success compared to UGFS. No evidence of a difference was detected in recurrence, except for a possible long-term benefit for RFA compared to EVLA or HL/S. Studies which provide more evidence on the breadth of treatments are needed. Future trials should seek to standardise clinical terminology of outcome measures and the time points at which they are measured.
Topics: Catheter Ablation; Female; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saphenous Vein; Sclerotherapy; Varicose Veins; Venous Insufficiency
PubMed: 34378180
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005624.pub4 -
JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck... Apr 2022Papillary microcarcinomas of the thyroid (mPTCs) account for an increasing proportion of thyroid cancers in past decades. The use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Papillary microcarcinomas of the thyroid (mPTCs) account for an increasing proportion of thyroid cancers in past decades. The use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been investigated as an alternative to surgery. The effectiveness and safety of RFA has yet to be determined.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of RFA for low-risk mPTC.
DATA SOURCES
Embase, MEDLINE via Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the top 100 references of Google Scholar were searched from inception to May 28, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Articles reporting on adult patients with mPTC treated with RFA were included. Studies that involved patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension were excluded. Final article selection was conducted by multiple reviewers based on consensus. The proportion of eligible articles was 1%.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the MOOSE guidelines. Random and fixed-effect models were applied to obtain pooled proportions and 95% CIs.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the complete disappearance rate of mPTC. Secondary outcomes were tumor progression and complications.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. A total of 1770 patients (1379 women [77.9%]; mean [SD] age, 45.4 [11.4] years; age range, 42.5-66.0 years) with 1822 tumors were treated with RFA; 49 tumors underwent 1 additional RFA session and 1 tumor underwent 2 additional RFA sessions. Mean (SD) follow-up time was 33.0 (11.4) months (range, 6-131 months). The pooled complete disappearance rate at the end of follow-up was 79% (95% CI, 65%-94%). The overall tumor progression rate was 1.5% (n = 26 patients), local residual mPTC in the ablation area was found in 7 tumors (0.4%), new mPTC in the thyroid was found in 15 patients (0.9%), and 4 patients (0.2%) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up. No distant metastases were detected. Three major complications occurred (2 voice changes lasting >2 months and 1 cardiac arrhythmia). Minor complications were described in 45 patients.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that RFA is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk mPTCs. Radiofrequency ablation could be envisioned as step-up treatment after local tumor growth under active surveillance for an mPTC or initial treatment in patients with mPTCs with anxiety about active surveillance.
Topics: Carcinoma, Papillary; Female; Humans; Male; Radiofrequency Ablation; Thyroid Neoplasms
PubMed: 35142816
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2021.4381 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.For our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Serious adverse effects' in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).For our secondary outcome 'Participant-reported short-term adverse events', all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events', fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.There is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.Although our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adult; Atrophy; Catheter Ablation; Chemexfoliation; Cicatrix; Cosmetic Techniques; Dermal Fillers; Female; Humans; Hypertrophy; Laser Therapy; Male; Needles; Young Adult
PubMed: 27038134
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011946.pub2 -
Journal of the American College of... May 2023Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is a commonly performed procedure. However, it is associated with potentially significant complications. Reported...
BACKGROUND
Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is a commonly performed procedure. However, it is associated with potentially significant complications. Reported procedure-related complication rates are highly variable, depending in part on study design.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this systematic review and pooled analysis was to determine the rate of procedure-related complications associated with catheter ablation of AF using data from randomized control trials and to assess temporal trends.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from January 2013 to September 2022 for randomized control trials that included patients undergoing a first ablation procedure of AF using either radiofrequency or cryoballoon (PROSPERO, CRD42022370273).
RESULTS
A total of 1,468 references were retrieved, of which 89 studies met inclusion criteria. A total of 15,701 patients were included in the current analysis. Overall and severe procedure-related complication rates were 4.51% (95% CI: 3.76%-5.32%) and 2.44% (95% CI: 1.98%-2.93%), respectively. Vascular complications were the most frequent type of complication (1.31%). The next most common complications were pericardial effusion/tamponade (0.78%) and stroke/transient ischemic attack (0.17%). The procedure-related complication rate during the most recent 5-year period of publication was significantly lower than during the earlier 5-year period (3.77% vs 5.31%; P = 0.043). The pooled mortality rate was stable over the 2 time periods (0.06% vs 0.05%; P = 0.892). There was no significant difference in complication rate according to pattern of AF, ablation modality, or ablation strategies beyond pulmonary vein isolation.
CONCLUSIONS
Procedure-related complications and mortality rates associated with catheter ablation of AF are low and have declined in the past decade.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiac Tamponade; Catheter Ablation; Databases, Factual; Ischemic Attack, Transient
PubMed: 37225362
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.03.418 -
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia Jul 2022Catheter ablation is a well-established therapy for rhythm control in patients who are refractory or intolerant to anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD). Less is known about the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Catheter ablation is a well-established therapy for rhythm control in patients who are refractory or intolerant to anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD). Less is known about the efficacy of catheter ablation compared with AAD as a first-line strategy for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF).
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of catheter ablation vs. AAD in patients naïve to prior rhythm control therapies.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared catheter ablation to AAD for initial rhythm control in symptomatic AF and reported the outcomes of (1) recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs); (2) symptomatic AF; (3) hospitalizations; and (4) symptomatic bradycardia. Heterogeneity was examined with I2statistics. P values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
We included five trials with 994 patients, of whom 502 (50.5%) underwent catheter ablation. Mean follow-up ranged from one to five years. Recurrences of AT (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25-0.52; p<0.001) and symptomatic AF (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.18-0.57; p<0.001), and hospitalizations (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.15-0.42; p<0.001) were significantly less frequent in patients treated with catheter ablation compared with AAD. Symptomatic bradycardia was not significantly different between groups (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.65; p=0.28). Significant pericardial effusions or tamponade occurred in eight of 464 (1.7%) patients in the catheter ablation group.
CONCLUSION
These findings suggest that catheter ablation has superior efficacy to AAD as an initial rhythm control strategy in patients with symptomatic AF.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Catheter Ablation; Heart Atria; Humans; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35830118
DOI: 10.36660/abc.20210477 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may benefit adults with atrial fibrillation or those who had been treated for atrial fibrillation. Atrial fibrillation is caused by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may benefit adults with atrial fibrillation or those who had been treated for atrial fibrillation. Atrial fibrillation is caused by multiple micro re-entry circuits within the atrial tissue, which result in chaotic rapid activity in the atria.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based rehabilitation programmes, alone or with another intervention, compared with no-exercise training controls in adults who currently have AF, or have been treated for AF.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases; CENTRAL and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection Thomson Reuters, CINAHL EBSCO, LILACS Bireme, and three clinical trial registers on 14 July 2016. We also checked the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews identified by the searches. We imposed no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that investigated exercise-based interventions compared with any type of no-exercise control. We included trials that included adults aged 18 years or older with atrial fibrillation, or post-treatment for atrial fibrillation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias using the domains outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by using standard Chi² and I² statistics. We performed meta-analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models; we used standardised mean differences where different scales were used for the same outcome. We assessed the risk of random errors with trial sequential analysis (TSA) and used the GRADE methodology to rate the quality of evidence, reporting it in the 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs with a total of 421 patients with various types of atrial fibrillation. All trials were conducted between 2006 and 2016, and had short follow-up (eight weeks to six months). Risks of bias ranged from high risk to low risk.The exercise-based programmes in four trials consisted of both aerobic exercise and resistance training, in one trial consisted of Qi-gong (slow and graceful movements), and in another trial, consisted of inspiratory muscle training.For mortality, very low-quality evidence from six trials suggested no clear difference in deaths between the exercise and no-exercise groups (relative risk (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 15.78; participants = 421; I² = 0%; deaths = 2). Very low-quality evidence from five trials suggested no clear difference between groups for serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; participants = 381; I² = 0%; events = 8). Low-quality evidence from two trials suggested no clear difference in health-related quality of life for the Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component summary measure (mean difference (MD) 1.96, 95% CI -2.50 to 6.42; participants = 224; I² = 69%), or the SF-36 mental component summary measure (MD 1.99, 95% CI -0.48 to 4.46; participants = 224; I² = 0%). Exercise capacity was assessed by cumulated work, or maximal power (Watt), obtained by cycle ergometer, or by six minute walking test, or ergospirometry testing measuring VO2 peak. We found moderate-quality evidence from two studies that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity, measured by VO2 peak, more than no exercise (MD 3.76, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.15; participants = 208; I² = 0%); and very low-quality evidence from four studies that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity more than no exercise, measured by the six-minute walking test (MD 75.76, 95% CI 14.00 to 137.53; participants = 272; I² = 85%). When we combined the different assessment tools for exercise capacity, we found very low-quality evidence from six trials that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity more than no exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.26; participants = 359; I² = 65%). Overall, the quality of the evidence for the outcomes ranged from moderate to very-low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Due to few randomised patients and outcomes, we could not evaluate the real impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality or serious adverse events. The evidence showed no clinically relevant effect on health-related quality of life. Pooled data showed a positive effect on the surrogate outcome of physical exercise capacity, but due to the low number of patients and the moderate to very low-quality of the underpinning evidence, we could not be certain of the magnitude of the effect. Future high-quality randomised trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with atrial fibrillation on patient-relevant outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiac Rehabilitation; Exercise Therapy; Exercise Tolerance; Humans; Qigong; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training
PubMed: 28181684
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011197.pub2 -
Thrombosis and Haemostasis Jan 2022The consensus of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) has been published in 2017 which provided useful clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The consensus of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) has been published in 2017 which provided useful clinical guidance for cardiologists, neurologists, geriatricians, and general practitioners in the Asia-Pacific region. In these years, many important new data regarding stroke prevention in AF were reported. The practice guidelines subcommittee members comprehensively reviewed updated information on stroke prevention in AF, and summarized them in this 2021 focused update of the 2017 consensus guidelines of the APHRS on stroke prevention in AF. We highlighted and focused on several issues, including the importance of the AF Better Care pathway, the advantages of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for Asians, the considerations of use of NOACs for Asian AF patients with single one stroke risk factor beyond gender, the role of lifestyle factors on stroke risk, the use of oral anticoagulants during the "coronavirus disease 2019" pandemic, etc. We fully realize that there are gaps, unaddressed questions, and many areas of uncertainty and debate in the current knowledge of AF, and the physician's decision remains the most important factor in the management of AF.
Topics: Acute Coronary Syndrome; Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Asia; Atrial Fibrillation; COVID-19; Catheter Ablation; Female; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Hemorrhage; Holistic Health; Humans; Male; Pandemics; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Risk Assessment; SARS-CoV-2; Societies, Medical; Stroke
PubMed: 34773920
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739411