-
JACC. Heart Failure Feb 2022This study sought to estimate and compare the aggregate treatment benefit of pharmacological therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This study sought to estimate and compare the aggregate treatment benefit of pharmacological therapy for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.
BACKGROUND
The estimated treatment effects of various combinations of contemporary HF medical therapies are not well characterized.
METHODS
We performed a systematic network meta-analysis, using MEDLINE/EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials published between January 1987 and January 2020. We included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate, ivabradine, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), vericiguat, and omecamtiv-mecarbil. The primary outcome was all-cause death. We estimated the life-years gained in 2 HF populations (BIOSTAT-CHF [BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure] and ASIAN-HF [Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Registry]).
RESULTS
We identified 75 relevant trials representing 95,444 participants. A combination of ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was most effective in reducing all-cause death (HR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.31-0.49); followed by ARNi, BB, MRA, and vericiguat (HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.32-0.53); and ARNi, BB, and MRA (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.36-0.54). Results were similar for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for HF (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.29-0.46 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i; HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.35-0.56 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and omecamtiv-mecarbil; and HR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.34-0.55 for ARNi, BB, MRA, and vericiguat). The estimated additional number of life-years gained for a 70-year-old patient on ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was 5.0 years (2.5-7.5 years) compared with no treatment in secondary analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the estimated aggregate benefit is greatest for a combination of ARNi, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i.
Topics: Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Heart Failure; Humans; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 34895860
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2021.09.004 -
Cardiovascular Therapeutics 2022The purpose of this study is to compare the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on exercise capacity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to compare the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on exercise capacity and several prognostic markers in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure (HF).
METHODS
This systematic review is registered on the INPLASY website (number: INPLASY202080112). We conducted a comprehensive search in eight databases of literature before September 13, 2019. Trials comparing HIIT and MICT in participants with CAD or HF aged 52-78 years were included. Exercise capacity (peak oxygen consumption (peak VO)) and prognostic markers, such as the anaerobic threshold (AT), minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO) slope, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and prognostic value of the predicted VO max per cent (the predicted VO peak (%)) were examined.
RESULTS
A total of 15 studies were included comprising 664 patients, 50% of which were male, with an average age of 60.3 ± 13.2 years. For patients with CAD, HIIT significantly improved peak VO values (95% CI 0.7 to 2.11) compared with MICT, but peak VO values in patients with HF did not seem to change. For training lasting less than eight weeks, HIIT significantly improved peak VO values (95% CI 0.70 to 2.10), while HIIT lasting 12 weeks or longer resulted in a modestly increased peak VO value (95% CI 0.31 to 5.31). High-intensity interval training significantly increased the AT when compared with MICT (95% CI 0.50 to 1.48). High-intensity interval training also caused a moderate increase in LVEF (95% CI 0.55 to 5.71) but did not have a significant effect on the VE/VCO slope (95% CI -2.32 to 0.98) or the predicted VO peak (95% CI -2.54 to 9.59) compared with MICT.
CONCLUSIONS
High-intensity interval training is an effective therapy for improving peak VO values in patients with CAD. High-intensity interval training in the early stage (eight weeks or fewer) is superior to MICT. Finally, HIIT significantly improved prognostic markers, including the AT and LVEF in patients with CAD and HF.
Topics: Aged; Coronary Artery Disease; Exercise Tolerance; Female; Heart Failure; High-Intensity Interval Training; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Oxygen Consumption; Prognosis; Stroke Volume; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 35801132
DOI: 10.1155/2022/4273809 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019Chronic heart failure (HF) is a growing global health challenge. People with HF experience substantial burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic heart failure (HF) is a growing global health challenge. People with HF experience substantial burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous (2014) Cochrane systematic review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission among people with HF, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane Review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with HF with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction HF (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in the hospital/centre-based setting.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of people with heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 29 January 2018. We also checked the bibliographies of systematic reviews and two trial registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with six months' or longer follow-up versus a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults (> 18 years) with evidence of HF - either HFrEF or HFpEF.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible for inclusion in the review. We obtained full papers of potentially relevant trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials, assessed their risk of bias, and performed GRADE analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 44 trials (5783 participants with HF) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 11 new trials (N = 1040), in addition to the previously identified 33 trials. Although the evidence base includes predominantly patients with HFrEF with New York Heart Association classes II and III receiving centre-based exercise-based CR programmes, a growing body of studies include patients with HFpEF and are undertaken in a home-based setting. All included studies included a no formal exercise training intervention comparator. However, a wide range of comparators were seen across studies that included active intervention (i.e. education, psychological intervention) or usual medical care alone. The overall risk of bias of included trials was low or unclear, and we downgraded results using the GRADE tool for all but one outcome.Cardiac rehabilitation may make little or no difference in all-cause mortality over the short term (≤ one year of follow-up) (27 trials, 28 comparisons (2596 participants): intervention 67/1302 (5.1%) vs control 75/1294 (5.8%); risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.21; low-quality GRADE evidence) but may improve all-cause mortality in the long term (> 12 months follow up) (6 trials/comparisons (2845 participants): intervention 244/1418 (17.2%) vs control 280/1427 (19.6%) events): RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; high-quality evidence). Researchers provided no data on deaths due to HF. CR probably reduces overall hospital admissions in the short term (up to one year of follow-up) (21 trials, 21 comparisons (2182 participants): (intervention 180/1093 (16.5%) vs control 258/1089 (23.7%); RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.83; moderate-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 14) and may reduce HF-specific hospitalisation (14 trials, 15 comparisons (1114 participants): (intervention 40/562 (7.1%) vs control 61/552 (11.1%) RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; low-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 25). After CR, a clinically important improvement in short-term disease-specific health-related quality of life may be evident (Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire - 17 trials, 18 comparisons (1995 participants): mean difference (MD) -7.11 points, 95% CI -10.49 to -3.73; low-quality evidence). Pooling across all studies, regardless of the HRQoL measure used, shows there may be clinically important improvement with exercise (26 trials, 29 comparisons (3833 participants); standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.60, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.39; I² = 87%; Chi² = 215.03; low-quality evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent different models of ExCR delivery: centre vs. home-based, exercise dose, exercise only vs. comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone vs aerobic plus resistance programmes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated Cochrane Review provides additional randomised evidence (11 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous version (2014) of this Cochane Review. Compared to no exercise control, CR appears to have no impact on mortality in the short term (< 12 months' follow-up). Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows that CR probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and may reduce HF-specific hospital admissions in the short term (up to 12 months). CR may confer a clinically important improvement in health-related quality of life, although we remain uncertain about this because the evidence is of low quality. Future ExCR trials need to continue to consider the recruitment of traditionally less represented HF patient groups including older, female, and HFpEF patients, and alternative CR delivery settings including home- and using technology-based programmes.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cardiac Rehabilitation; Cause of Death; Chronic Disease; Exercise Therapy; Exercise Tolerance; Female; Health Status; Heart Failure; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke Volume; Young Adult
PubMed: 30695817
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003331.pub5 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Aug 2023Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an effective and safe modality for early-stage lung cancer and lung metastases. However, tumors in an ultra-central location... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Stereotactic body radiotherapy for Ultra-Central lung Tumors: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis and International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society practice guidelines.
BACKGROUND
Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an effective and safe modality for early-stage lung cancer and lung metastases. However, tumors in an ultra-central location pose unique safety considerations. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the current safety and efficacy data and provide practice recommendations on behalf of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society (ISRS).
METHODS
We performed a systematic review using PubMed and EMBASE databases of patients with ultra-central lung tumors treated with SBRT. Studies reporting local control (LC) and/or toxicity were included. Studies with <5 treated lesions, non-English language, re-irradiation, nodal tumors, or mixed outcomes in which ultra-central tumors could not be discerned were excluded. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for studies reporting relevant endpoints. Meta-regression was conducted to determine the effect of various covariates on the primary outcomes.
RESULTS
602 unique studies were identified of which 27 (one prospective observational, the remainder retrospective) were included, representing 1183 treated targets. All studies defined ultra-central as the planning target volume (PTV) overlapping the proximal bronchial tree (PBT). The most common dose fractionations were 50 Gy/5, 60 Gy/8, and 60 Gy/12 fractions. The pooled 1- and 2-year LC estimates were 92 % and 89 %, respectively. Meta-regression identified biological effective dose (BED10) as a significant predictor of 1-year LC. A total of 109 grade 3-4 toxicity events, with a pooled incidence of 6 %, were reported, most commonly pneumonitis. There were 73 treatment related deaths, with a pooled incidence of 4 %, with the most common being hemoptysis. Anticoagulation, interstitial lung disease, endobronchial tumor, and concomitant targeted therapies were observed risk factors for fatal toxicity events.
CONCLUSION
SBRT for ultra-central lung tumors results in acceptable rates of local control, albeit with risks of severe toxicity. Caution should be taken for appropriate patient selection, consideration of concomitant therapies, and radiotherapy plan design.
Topics: Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Radiosurgery; Retrospective Studies; Lung; Dose Fractionation, Radiation; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37393758
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.107281 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Coenzyme Q10, or ubiquinone, is a non-prescription nutritional supplement. It is a fat-soluble molecule that acts as an electron carrier in mitochondria, and as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Coenzyme Q10, or ubiquinone, is a non-prescription nutritional supplement. It is a fat-soluble molecule that acts as an electron carrier in mitochondria, and as a coenzyme for mitochondrial enzymes. Coenzyme Q10 deficiency may be associated with a multitude of diseases, including heart failure. The severity of heart failure correlates with the severity of coenzyme Q10 deficiency. Emerging data suggest that the harmful effects of reactive oxygen species are increased in people with heart failure, and coenzyme Q10 may help to reduce these toxic effects because of its antioxidant activity. Coenzyme Q10 may also have a role in stabilising myocardial calcium-dependent ion channels, and in preventing the consumption of metabolites essential for adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) synthesis. Coenzyme Q10, although not a primary recommended treatment, could be beneficial to people with heart failure. Several randomised controlled trials have compared coenzyme Q10 to other therapeutic modalities, but no systematic review of existing randomised trials was conducted prior to the original version of this Cochrane Review, in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To review the safety and efficacy of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and AMED on 16 October 2020; ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2020, and the ISRCTN Registry on 11 November 2019. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of either parallel or cross-over design that assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of coenzyme Q10 in people with heart failure. When we identified cross-over studies, we considered data only from the first phase.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, assessed study risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR); for continuous data, the mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate data were available, we conducted meta-analysis. When meta-analysis was not possible, we wrote a narrative synthesis. We provided a PRISMA flow chart to show the flow of study selection.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eleven studies, with 1573 participants, comparing coenzyme Q10 to placebo or conventional therapy (control). In the majority of the studies, sample size was relatively small. There were important differences among studies in daily coenzyme Q10 dose, follow-up period, and the measures of treatment effect. All studies had unclear, or high risk of bias, or both, in one or more bias domains. We were only able to conduct meta-analysis for some of the outcomes. None of the included trials considered quality of life, measured on a validated scale, exercise variables (exercise haemodynamics), or cost-effectiveness. Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality more than control (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.95; 1 study, 420 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13.3; moderate-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence of inconclusive results between the coenzyme Q10 and control groups for the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 9.59; 1 study, 420 participants), and stroke (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.48; 1 study, 420 participants). Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces hospitalisation related to heart failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.78; 2 studies, 1061 participants; NNTB 9.7; moderate-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence suggests that coenzyme Q10 may improve the left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 1.77, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.44; 7 studies, 650 participants), but the results are inconclusive for exercise capacity (MD 48.23, 95% CI -24.75 to 121.20; 3 studies, 91 participants); and the risk of developing adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 2 studies, 568 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The included studies provide moderate-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 probably reduces all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for heart failure. There is low-quality evidence of inconclusive results as to whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on the risk of myocardial infarction, or stroke. Because of very low-quality evidence, it is very uncertain whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on either left ventricular ejection fraction or exercise capacity. There is low-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 may increase the risk of adverse effects, or have little to no difference. There is currently no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of coenzyme Q10 for heart failure. Future trials are needed to confirm our findings.
Topics: Ataxia; Heart Failure; Humans; Mitochondrial Diseases; Muscle Weakness; Myocardial Infarction; Quality of Life; Stroke; Stroke Volume; Ubiquinone; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 35608922
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008684.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Beta-blockers are an essential part of standard therapy in adult congestive heart failure and therefore, are expected to be beneficial in children. However, congestive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Beta-blockers are an essential part of standard therapy in adult congestive heart failure and therefore, are expected to be beneficial in children. However, congestive heart failure in children differs from that in adults in terms of characteristics, aetiology, and drug clearance. Therefore, paediatric needs must be specifically investigated. This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of beta-adrenoceptor-blockers (beta-blockers) in children with congestive heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS up to November 2015. Bibliographies of identified studies were checked. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, controlled, clinical trials investigating the effect of beta-blocker therapy on paediatric congestive heart failure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted and assessed data from the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four new studies for the review update; the review now includes seven studies with 420 participants. Four small studies with 20 to 30 children each, and two larger studies of 80 children each, showed an improvement of congestive heart failure with beta-blocker therapy. A larger study with 161 participants showed no evidence of benefit over placebo in a composite measure of heart failure outcomes. The included studies showed no significant difference in mortality or heart transplantation rates between the beta-blocker and control groups. No significant adverse events were reported with beta-blockers, apart from one episode of complete heart block. A meta-analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and fractional shortening (LVFS) data showed a very small improvement with beta-blockers. However, there were vast differences in the age, age range, and health of the participants (aetiology and severity of heart failure; heterogeneity of diagnoses and co-morbidities); there was a range of treatments across studies (choice of beta-blocker, dosing, duration of treatment); and a lack of standardised methods and outcome measures. Therefore, the primary outcomes could not be pooled in meta-analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is not enough evidence to support or discourage the use of beta-blockers in children with congestive heart failure, or to propose a paediatric dosing scheme. However, the sparse data available suggested that children with congestive heart failure might benefit from beta-blocker treatment. Further investigations in clearly defined populations with standardised methodology are required to establish guidelines for therapy. Pharmacokinetic investigations of beta-blockers in children are also required to provide effective dosing in future trials.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Carbazoles; Carvedilol; Child; Child, Preschool; Heart Failure; Heart Transplantation; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Metoprolol; Propanolamines; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 32700759
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007037.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2013Colloid solutions are widely used in fluid resuscitation of critically ill patients. There are several choices of colloid, and there is ongoing debate about the relative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Colloid solutions are widely used in fluid resuscitation of critically ill patients. There are several choices of colloid, and there is ongoing debate about the relative effectiveness of colloids compared to crystalloid fluids.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of colloids compared to crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (17 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) (Issue 10, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid) 1946 to October 2012, EMBASE (Ovid) 1980 to October 2012, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to October 2012), ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (1990 to October 2012), PubMed (October 2012), www.clinical trials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com. We also searched the bibliographies of relevant studies and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of colloids compared to crystalloids, in patients requiring volume replacement. We excluded cross-over trials and trials involving pregnant women and neonates.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and rated quality of allocation concealment. We analysed trials with a 'double-intervention', such as those comparing colloid in hypertonic crystalloid to isotonic crystalloid, separately. We stratified the analysis according to colloid type and quality of allocation concealment.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 78 eligible trials; 70 of these presented mortality data.COLLOIDS COMPARED TO CRYSTALLOIDS: Albumin or plasma protein fraction - 24 trials reported data on mortality, including a total of 9920 patients. The pooled risk ratio (RR) from these trials was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10). When we excluded the trial with poor-quality allocation concealment, pooled RR was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.09). Hydroxyethyl starch - 25 trials compared hydroxyethyl starch with crystalloids and included 9147 patients. The pooled RR was 1.10 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.19). Modified gelatin - 11 trials compared modified gelatin with crystalloid and included 506 patients. The pooled RR was 0.91 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.72). (When the trials by Boldt et al were removed from the three preceding analyses, the results were unchanged.) Dextran - nine trials compared dextran with a crystalloid and included 834 patients. The pooled RR was 1.24 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.65). COLLOIDS IN HYPERTONIC CRYSTALLOID COMPARED TO ISOTONIC CRYSTALLOID: Nine trials compared dextran in hypertonic crystalloid with isotonic crystalloid, including 1985 randomised participants. Pooled RR for mortality was 0.91 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.06).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials that resuscitation with colloids reduces the risk of death, compared to resuscitation with crystalloids, in patients with trauma, burns or following surgery. Furthermore, the use of hydroxyethyl starch might increase mortality. As colloids are not associated with an improvement in survival and are considerably more expensive than crystalloids, it is hard to see how their continued use in clinical practice can be justified.
Topics: Albumins; Blood Proteins; Colloids; Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Dextrans; Fluid Therapy; Gelatin; Humans; Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives; Isotonic Solutions; Plasma Substitutes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Resuscitation
PubMed: 23450531
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub6 -
Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia 2023Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) is a form of temporary mechanical circulatory support and simultaneous extracorporeal gas exchange for acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) is a form of temporary mechanical circulatory support and simultaneous extracorporeal gas exchange for acute cardiorespiratory failure, including refractory cardiogenic shock (CS) and cardiac arrest (CA). Few studies have assessed predictors of successful weaning (SW) from VA ECMO. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify a multiparameter strategy associated with SW from VA ECMO. PubMed and the Cochrane Library and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Studies reporting adult patients with CS or CA treated with VA ECMO published from the year 2000 onwards were included. Primary outcomes were hemodynamic, laboratory, and echocardiography parameters associated with a VA ECMO SW. A total of 11 studies (n=653) were included in this review. Pooled VA ECMO SW was 45% (95%CI: 39-50%, I2 7%) and in-hospital mortality rate was 46.6% (95%CI: 33-60%; I2 36%). In the SW group, pulse pressure [MD 12.7 (95%CI: 7.3-18) I2 = 0%] and mean blood pressure [MD 20.15 (95%CI: 13.8-26.4 I2 = 0) were higher. They also had lower values of creatinine [MD -0.59 (95%CI: -0.9 to -0.2) I2 = 7%], lactate [MD -3.1 (95%CI: -5.4 to -0.7) I2 = 89%], and creatine kinase [-2779.5 (95%CI: -5387 to -171) I2 = 38%]. And higher left and right ventricular ejection fraction, MD 17.9% (95%CI: -0.2-36.2) I2 = 91%, and MD 15.9% (95%CI 11.9-20) I2 = 0%, respectively. Different hemodynamic, laboratory, and echocardiographic parameters were associated with successful device removal. This systematic review demonstrated the relationship of multiparametric assessment on VA ECMO SW.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Shock, Cardiogenic; Stroke Volume; Ventricular Function, Right; Heart Arrest; Lactic Acid
PubMed: 36722581
DOI: 10.4103/aca.aca_79_22 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2013To clarify whether any particular β blocker is superior in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction or whether the benefits of these agents are mainly... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To clarify whether any particular β blocker is superior in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction or whether the benefits of these agents are mainly due to a class effect.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of efficacy of different β blockers in heart failure.
DATA SOURCES
CINAHL(1982-2011), Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials (-2011), Embase (1980-2011), Medline/PubMed (1966-2011), and Web of Science (1965-2011).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials comparing β blockers with other β blockers or other treatments.
DATA EXTRACTION
The primary endpoint was all cause death at the longest available follow-up, assessed with odds ratios and Bayesian random effect 95% credible intervals, with independent extraction by observers.
RESULTS
21 trials were included, focusing on atenolol, bisoprolol, bucindolol, carvedilol, metoprolol, and nebivolol. As expected, in the overall analysis, β blockers provided credible mortality benefits in comparison with placebo or standard treatment after a median of 12 months (odds ratio 0.69, 0.56 to 0.80). However, no obvious differences were found when comparing the different β blockers head to head for the risk of death, sudden cardiac death, death due to pump failure, or drug discontinuation. Accordingly, improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction were also similar irrespective of the individual study drug.
CONCLUSION
The benefits of β blockers in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction seem to be mainly due to a class effect, as no statistical evidence from current trials supports the superiority of any single agent over the others.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Bayes Theorem; Heart Failure; Humans; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23325883
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f55 -
ESMO Open Aug 2023Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) has been shown to benefit progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) after progression... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) has been shown to benefit progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) after progression on ≥1 human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapies. However, interstitial lung disease (ILD) and cardiotoxicity are the most significant toxicities associated with T-DXd. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the incidence and severity of these toxicities in mBC patients treated with T-DXd.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases, and conferences websites for randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized studies of intervention including HER2-low or HER2-positive mBC patients who received at least one dose of T-DXd. Statistical analysis was carried out using R software.
RESULTS
We included 15 studies comprising 1970 patients with a mean follow-up of 13.3 months. Median age ranged from 53 to 59 years, 61.9% were non-Asian, and 67.4% had hormone receptor-positive mBC. In a pooled analysis, the incidence of ILD was 11.7% [222 patients; 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.1% to 15.0%]. Patients receiving T-DXd dose of 6.4 mg/kg developed a significantly higher rate of ILD (22.7%) compared to those receiving a dose of 5.4 mg/kg (9.3%) (P < 0.01). Most cases of ILD (80.2%; 174/217 patients) were mild (grade 1 or 2). Grade 3 or 4 ILD was reported in 29 patients (13.4%), and grade 5 in 14 patients (6.4%). The incidence of decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 1.95% (95% CI 0.65% to 3.73%), and the QT interval (QTi) prolongation was 7.77% (95% CI 2.74% to 20.11%). Most patients were asymptomatic, but four had LV dysfunction and heart failure (0.26%).
CONCLUSIONS
In this meta-analysis of 1970 patients with mBC, treatment with T-DXd was associated with a 11.7% incidence of ILD, 7.7% incidence of prolonged QTi, and 1.9% incidence of reduced LVEF. Early detection and management of T-DXd-related toxicity by a multidisciplinary team may ultimately improve patient outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Cardiotoxicity; Incidence; Stroke Volume; Ventricular Function, Left; Lung Diseases, Interstitial
PubMed: 37481956
DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.101613