-
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Jun 2017The use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) is controversial. In recent years, guidelines to cardiologists and dentists have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) is controversial. In recent years, guidelines to cardiologists and dentists have advised restriction of AP to high-risk groups (in Europe and the USA) or against its use at all (in the UK). The objective of this systematic review was to appraise the evidence for use of AP for prevention of bacteraemia or IE in patients undergoing dental procedures.
METHODS
We conducted electronic searches in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Science. We assessed the methodological characteristics of included studies using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for trials. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of studies, assessed the methodology of included studies and extracted the data.
RESULTS
We identified 178 eligible studies, of which 36 were included in the review. This included 10 time-trend studies, 5 observational studies and 21 trials. All trials identified used bacteraemia as an endpoint rather than IE. One time-trend study suggests that total AP restriction may be associated with a rising incidence of IE, while data on the consequences of relative AP restriction are conflicting. Meta-analysis of trials indicates that AP is effective in reducing the incidence of bacteraemia (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.57, p<0.01), but case-control studies suggest this may not translate to a statistically significant protective effect against IE in patients at low risk of disease.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence base for the use of AP is limited, heterogeneous and the methodological quality of many studies is poor. Postprocedural bacteraemia is not a good surrogate endpoint for IE. Given the logistical challenges of a randomised trial, high-quality case-control studies would help to evaluate the role of dental procedures in causing IE and the efficacy of AP in its prevention.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Endocarditis; Humans
PubMed: 28213367
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-309102 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2018The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of... (Review)
Review
The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of antibiotics has led to widespread antimicrobial resistance and the emergence of multi drug resistant strains of bacteria. The main aim of this work was to determine whether there is a genuine need for antibiotic prophylaxis in two common dental procedures; dental implants and tooth extractions. Electronic searches were conducted across databases such as Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the UK National Health Service, Centre for reviews, Science Direct, PubMed and the British Dental Journal to identify clinical trials of either dental implants or tooth extractions, whereby the independent variable was systemic prophylactic antibiotics used as part of treatment in order to prevent postoperative complications such as implant failure or infection. Primary outcomes of interest were implant failure, and postoperative infections which include systemic bacteraemia and localised infections. The secondary outcome of interest was adverse events due to antibiotics. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the risk of bias, extract outcomes of interest and to identify studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Seven randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the final review comprising = 1368 patients requiring either tooth extraction(s) or dental implant(s). No statistically significant evidence was found to support the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in reducing the risk of implant failure ( = 0.09, RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.16⁻1.14) or post-operative complications ( = 0.47, RR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.34⁻1.65) under normal conditions. Approximately 33 patients undergoing dental implant surgery need to receive antibiotics in order to prevent one implant failure from occurring. There is little conclusive evidence to suggest the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for third molar extractive surgery in healthy young adults. There was no statistical evidence for adverse events experienced for antibiotics vs. placebo. Based on our analysis, even if financially feasible, clinicians must carefully consider the appropriate use of antibiotics in dental implants and extraction procedures due to the risk of allergic reactions and the development of microbial drug resistance.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Endocarditis; Female; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Tooth Extraction; Young Adult
PubMed: 30513764
DOI: 10.3390/medicina54060095 -
The American Journal of Medicine Mar 2022We sought to determine if controlled, prospective clinical data validate the long-standing belief that intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy is required for the full...
BACKGROUND
We sought to determine if controlled, prospective clinical data validate the long-standing belief that intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy is required for the full duration of treatment for 3 invasive bacterial infections: osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and infective endocarditis.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of published, prospective, controlled trials that compared IV-only to oral stepdown regimens in the treatment of these diseases. Using the PubMed database, we identified 7 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of osteomyelitis, 9 of bacteremia, 1 including both osteomyelitis and bacteremia, and 3 of endocarditis, as well as one quasi-experimental endocarditis study. Study results were synthesized via forest plots and funnel charts (for risk of study bias), using RevMan 5.4.1 and Meta-Essentials freeware, respectively.
RESULTS
The 21 studies demonstrated either no difference in clinical efficacy, or superiority of oral versus IV-only antimicrobial therapy, including for mortality; in no study was IV-only treatment superior in efficacy. The frequency of catheter-related adverse events and duration of inpatient hospitalization were both greater in IV-only groups.
DISCUSSION
Numerous prospective, controlled investigations demonstrate that oral antibiotics are at least as effective, safer, and lead to shorter hospitalizations than IV-only therapy; no contrary data were identified. Treatment guidelines should be modified to indicate that oral therapy is appropriate for reasonably selected patients with osteomyelitis, bacteremia, and endocarditis.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteremia; Endocarditis; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Humans; Osteomyelitis
PubMed: 34715060
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2021.10.007 -
Cureus May 2023Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune condition characterized by multi-organ involvement. The clinical presentation often varies from mild to moderate to... (Review)
Review
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an autoimmune condition characterized by multi-organ involvement. The clinical presentation often varies from mild to moderate to severe. The cardiovascular system may also be affected, often portending a poor prognosis for patients. Although the relationship between SLE and cardiovascular disorders has been extensively explored through case reports and literature reviews, few systematic reviews explicitly focusing on this association have been conducted. In light of this, this systematic review aims to analyze the extent of the association between SLE and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), by exploring the risk of developing CVDs, including myocardial infarction (MI), atherosclerosis, myocarditis, pericarditis and arrhythmias, in SLE patients vs. non-SLE patients. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to perform the systematic review. A detailed search was done covering the period from March 2003 to March 2023 using three databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane. The PubMed search identified 597 articles, while Google Scholar and Cochrane searches yielded 559 and three articles, respectively. Of the 1159 articles retrieved, we chose eight for final consideration, after excluding papers that did not discuss the role of SLE in CVDs, papers published earlier than 2003, and papers with incomplete data. The eight studies chosen included two narrative reviews, two systematic reviews, and four observational studies. In this systematic review, SLE was proven to have a strong relationship with diverse CVDs, including rare ones scarcely discussed in the literature, such as vasculitis and aortic dissection. All eight of the final papers indicated a connection between SLE and CVDs, based on the systematic analysis of these articles, which revealed that most recent research supports a higher risk of peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD), MI, pericarditis, myocarditis, and other cardiovascular disorders in individuals with SLE. These associations may have certain gray areas, as patient characteristics and comorbidities often affect the extent of illness and long-term prognosis. Larger-scale studies are required to probe this relationship further and research the etiopathogenesis involved in order to improve patient outcomes. The effects of SLE on the heart are, however, unequivocal.
PubMed: 37346216
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39284 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Infective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart. It can be caused by fungi, but most often is caused by bacteria. Many... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Infective endocarditis is a severe infection arising in the lining of the chambers of the heart. It can be caused by fungi, but most often is caused by bacteria. Many dental procedures cause bacteraemia, which could lead to bacterial endocarditis in a small proportion of people. The incidence of bacterial endocarditis is low, but it has a high mortality rate. Guidelines in many countries have recommended that antibiotics be administered to people at high risk of endocarditis prior to invasive dental procedures. However, guidance by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales states that antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis is not recommended routinely for people undergoing dental procedures. This is an update of a review that we first conducted in 2004 and last updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To determine whether prophylactic antibiotic administration, compared to no antibiotic administration or placebo, before invasive dental procedures in people at risk or at high risk of bacterial endocarditis, influences mortality, serious illness or the incidence of endocarditis. Secondary objectives To determine whether the effect of dental antibiotic prophylaxis differs in people with different cardiac conditions predisposing them to increased risk of endocarditis, and in people undergoing different high risk dental procedures. Harms Had we foundno evidence from randomised controlled trials or cohort studies on whether prophylactic antibiotics affected mortality or serious illness, and we had found evidence from these or case-control studies suggesting that prophylaxis with antibiotics reduced the incidence of endocarditis, then we would also have assessed whether the harms of prophylaxis with single antibiotic doses, such as with penicillin (amoxicillin 2 g or 3 g) before invasive dental procedures, compared with no antibiotic or placebo, equalled the benefits in prevention of endocarditis in people at high risk of this disease.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 10 May 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: Due to the low incidence of bacterial endocarditis, we anticipated that few if any trials would be located. For this reason, we included cohort and case-control studies with suitably matched control or comparison groups. The intervention was antibiotic prophylaxis, compared to no antibiotic prophylaxis or placebo, before a dental procedure in people with an increased risk of bacterial endocarditis. Cohort studies would need to follow at-risk individuals and assess outcomes following any invasive dental procedures, grouping participants according to whether or not they had received prophylaxis. Case-control studies would need to match people who had developed endocarditis after undergoing an invasive dental procedure (and who were known to be at increased risk before undergoing the procedure) with those at similar risk who had not developed endocarditis. Our outcomes of interest were mortality or serious adverse events requiring hospital admission; development of endocarditis following any dental procedure in a defined time period; development of endocarditis due to other non-dental causes; any recorded adverse effects of the antibiotics; and the cost of antibiotic provision compared to that of caring for patients who developed endocarditis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search records, selected studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in the included study and extracted data from the included study. As an author team, we judged the certainty of the evidence identified for the main comparison and key outcomes using GRADE criteria. We presented the main results in a summary of findings table.
MAIN RESULTS
Our new search did not find any new studies for inclusion since the last version of the review in 2013. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) or cohort studies were included in the previous versions of the review, but one case-control study met the inclusion criteria. The trial authors collected information on 48 people who had contracted bacterial endocarditis over a specific two-year period and had undergone a medical or dental procedure with an indication for prophylaxis within the past 180 days. These people were matched to a similar group of people who had not contracted bacterial endocarditis. All study participants had undergone an invasive medical or dental procedure. The two groups were compared to establish whether those who had received preventive antibiotics (penicillin) were less likely to have developed endocarditis. The authors found no significant effect of penicillin prophylaxis on the incidence of endocarditis. No data on other outcomes were reported. The level of certainty we have about the evidence is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There remains no clear evidence about whether antibiotic prophylaxis is effective or ineffective against bacterial endocarditis in at-risk people who are about to undergo an invasive dental procedure. We cannot determine whether the potential harms and costs of antibiotic administration outweigh any beneficial effect. Ethically, practitioners should discuss the potential benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis with their patients before a decision is made about administration.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dentistry; Endocarditis, Bacterial; Humans; Penicillins
PubMed: 35536541
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003813.pub5 -
Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine Jun 2020Infective endocarditis (IE) represents one of the most challenging clinical entities, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. The increasing number of surgical and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Infective endocarditis (IE) represents one of the most challenging clinical entities, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. The increasing number of surgical and transcatheter heart valves replacements performed annually lead to a higher incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) brought a new alternative for the treatment of aortic stenosis and a new subgroup of IE with its features. We aimed to compare the incidence of IE in TAVI and surgical valve replacement (SAVR) to identify risk factors for TAVI-IE, evaluate the possible impact on mortality, and clarify the best treatment strategies. A digital scan in PubMed and SCOPUS databases was performed. 68 publications were selected to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review on epidemiology, risk factors, and mortality predictors in TAVI-IE. No significant difference in IE rate was noted between patients with TAVI and those with SAVR for in-hospital, early, mid-term and late IE. Male gender, intubation, new pacemaker implantation IE and CKD were correlated with TAVI-IE. Surgical treatment was performed in 22.3% of cases. Overall mortality for the pooled cohort was 38.3%. In a multivariate logistic regression model, surgical treatment and self-expandable device were linked to lower mortality in TAVI-IE. Even if the invasive procedure can trigger bacteremia, exposing the TAVI valve to future infection, no significant difference in IE rate was noted in our analysis between patients with TAVI and those with SAVR for in-hospital, early, mid-term and late IE. Surgical treatment of TAVI-IE can be a viable option in patients with a prohibitive risk score.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Endocarditis; Female; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Prognosis; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
PubMed: 32706214
DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm.2020.02.68 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality....
BACKGROUND
Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality. Despite the high burden of neonatal sepsis, high-quality evidence in diagnosis and treatment is scarce. Due to the diagnostic challenges of sepsis and the relative immunosuppression of the newborn, many neonates receive antibiotics for suspected sepsis. Antibiotics have become the most used therapeutics in neonatal intensive care units, and observational studies in high-income countries suggest that 83% to 94% of newborns treated with antibiotics for suspected sepsis have negative blood cultures. The last Cochrane Review was updated in 2005. There is a need for an updated systematic review assessing the effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase Ovid; CINAHL; LILACS; Science Citation Index EXPANDED and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 12 March 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis. We included participants older than 72 hours of life at randomisation, suspected or diagnosed with neonatal sepsis, meningitis, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, or necrotising enterocolitis. We excluded trials that assessed treatment of fungal infections.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and our secondary outcomes were: serious adverse events, respiratory support, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, necrotising enterocolitis, and ototoxicity. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (580 participants). All trials were at high risk of bias, and had very low-certainty evidence. The five included trials assessed five different comparisons of antibiotics. We did not conduct a meta-analysis due to lack of relevant data. Of the five included trials one trial compared cefazolin plus amikacin with vancomycin plus amikacin; one trial compared ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid with flucloxacillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared cloxacillin plus amikacin with cefotaxime plus gentamicin; one trial compared meropenem with standard care (ampicillin plus gentamicin or cefotaxime plus gentamicin); and one trial compared vancomycin plus gentamicin with vancomycin plus aztreonam. None of the five comparisons found any evidence of a difference when assessing all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, or necrotising enterocolitis; however, none of the trials were near an information size that could contribute significantly to the evidence of the comparative benefits and risks of any particular antibiotic regimen. None of the trials assessed respiratory support or ototoxicity. The benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the lack of well-powered trials and the high risk of systematic errors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. RCTs assessing different antibiotic regimens in late-onset neonatal sepsis with low risks of bias are warranted.
Topics: Amikacin; Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Aztreonam; Bias; Cefazolin; Clavulanic Acid; Drug Therapy, Combination; Floxacillin; Gentamicins; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Neonatal Sepsis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ticarcillin; Vancomycin
PubMed: 33998665
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013836.pub2 -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Nov 2022Based primarily on in vitro and animal models, with little data directly addressing patient outcomes, current guidelines recommend treating staphylococcal prosthetic...
BACKGROUND
Based primarily on in vitro and animal models, with little data directly addressing patient outcomes, current guidelines recommend treating staphylococcal prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) with antibiotic combinations including gentamicin and rifampin. Here, we synthesize the clinical data on adjunctive rifampin and gentamicin in staphylococcal PVE.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of PubMed- and Cochrane-indexed studies reporting outcomes of staphylococcal PVE treated with adjunctive rifampin, gentamicin, both agents, or neither (ie, glycopeptide or β-lactam monotherapy). We recorded outcomes including mortality, relapsed infection, length of stay, nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, and important drug-drug interactions (DDIs).
RESULTS
Four relevant studies were identified. Two studies (n = 117) suggested that adding gentamicin to rifampin-containing regimens did not reduce clinical failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.98 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .39-2.46]), and 2 studies (n = 201) suggested that adding rifampin to gentamicin-containing regimens did not reduce clinical failure (OR, 1.29 [95% CI, .71-2.33]). Neither gentamicin nor rifampin was associated with reduced infection relapse; 1 study found that rifampin treatment was associated with longer hospitalizations (mean, 31.3 vs 42.3 days; < .001). Comparative safety outcomes were rarely reported, but 1 study found rifampin to be associated with hepatoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and DDIs, leading to treatment discontinuation in 31% of patients.
CONCLUSIONS
The existing clinical data do not suggest a benefit of either adjunctive gentamicin or rifampin in staphylococcal PVE. Given that other studies also suggest these agents add nephrotoxicity, hepatoxicity, and risk of DDIs without benefit in staphylococcal endovascular infections, we suggest that recommendations for gentamicin and rifampin in PVE be downgraded and primarily be used within the context of clinical trials.
PubMed: 36408468
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofac583 -
Journal of the American Heart... Jan 2023Background The Ross operation appears to restore normal survival in young and middle-aged adults with aortic valve disease. However, there are limited data comparing it... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background The Ross operation appears to restore normal survival in young and middle-aged adults with aortic valve disease. However, there are limited data comparing it with conventional aortic valve replacement. Herein, we compared outcomes of the Ross procedure with mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (M-AVR and B-AVR, respectively). Methods and Results MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through March 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies that investigated outcomes of patients aged ≥16 years undergoing the Ross procedure, M-AVR, or B-AVR. The systematic literature search identified 2 randomized controlled trials and 8 propensity score-matched studies involving a total of 4812 patients (Ross: n=1991; M-AVR: n=2019; and B-AVR: n=802). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the Ross procedure group compared with M-AVR (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.58 [0.35-0.97]; =0.035) and B-AVR (HR [95% CI], 0.32 [0.18-0.59]; <0.001) groups. The reintervention rate was lower after the Ross procedure and M-AVR compared with B-AVR, whereas it was higher after the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR. Major bleeding rate was lower after the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR. Long-term stroke rate was lower following the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR and B-AVR. The rate of endocarditis was also lower after the Ross procedure compared with B-AVR. Conclusions Improved long-term outcomes of the Ross procedure are demonstrated compared with conventional M-AVR and B-AVR options. These results highlight a need to enhance the recognition of the Ross procedure and revisit current guidelines on the optimal valve substitute for young and middle-aged patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Network Meta-Analysis; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Adolescent; Young Adult
PubMed: 36565200
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.122.027715 -
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