Techorueangwiwat, Chol

AbstractBackgroundPosterior wall isolation (PWI) is an emerging approach in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, yet its efficacy remains controversial. This is the first meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy of PWI in AF ablation.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of PWI in reducing atrial arrhythmia recurrence following initial AF ablation at long‐term follow‐ups when compared to conventional methods.MethodsWe conducted a literature search from inception through September 2021 in EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. We included RCTs that compared outcomes in PWI and conventional approaches of AF ablation. Data from each study were combined using the random‐effects, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird to calculate odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsEight RCT from 2009 to 2020, including 1024 AF patients, were included. PWI did not decrease overall atrial arrhythmias recurrence (RR 0.96, 95% CI:0.88–1.05, I2 = 31.6%, p‐value 0.393). However, the pooled analysis showed a significant decrease in AF recurrence in PWI compared to controlled approaches (RR 0.88, 95% CI:0.81–0.96, I2 = 48.2%, p‐value .004). In the subgroup analysis, PWI significantly decreased AF recurrence in the studies that included only persistent AF (RR = 0.89, 95% CI:0.80–0.98, I2 = 65.2%, p‐value .014). PWI significantly decreased AF recurrence when compared to PVI with roof line (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.95, I2 0.00%, p‐value .008).ConclusionOur study suggests that adding PWI significantly decreased AF recurrence in patients with persistent AF compared to controlled approaches. It highlights the importance of considering PWI during the initial procedure in this patient population.

AbstractBackgroundRadiofrequency catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias has traditionally been guided by fluoroscopy. Fluoroscopy exposes the patient, operator, and staff to ionizing radiation which has no safe dose void of stochastic and deterministic biologic risks. Zero fluoroscopy (ZF) approaches for catheter ablation have been advocated to eliminate these risks. We conducted a meta‐analysis comparing acute procedure success, recurrence‐free survival, complications, and procedure times between the approaches.MethodsWe conducted a literature search from inception through December 2020 in the databases of EMBASE and MEDLINE. We included randomized controlled trials and cohorts that compared the outcomes of interest in ZF and conventional/low fluoroscopy (CF/LF) approaches. The outcomes sought were acute procedure success, recurrence‐free survival, complications, and procedure times. Effect estimates were combined, using the random‐effects, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird.ResultsSixteen studies from 2013 to 2020, including 6052 patients (2219 ZF, 3833 CF/LF) were included. There were no significant differences in acute procedure success rate (odds ratio [OR]: 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75–1.59), recurrence‐free survival (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.78–1.49), periprocedural complication rate (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.45–1.16), or total procedure time (weighted mean difference 2.32 min, 95% CI: −2.85–7.50) between ZF and CF/LF approaches, respectively. Overall, only 1.26% of patients crossed over from ZF to CF/LF arm.ConclusionsPeriprocedural and postprocedural outcomes with a ZF approach compared favorably with traditional fluoroscopic guidance without increasing procedural times. As comfort with ZF grows, coupled with evolving mapping technologies, this method has potential to become the standard approach for catheter ablation.

Background: Although high power, shorter duration (HPSD) ablation and low power, longer duration (LPLD) ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation (AF) are frequently advocated to enhance safety and efficacy, there exists a need for comparative data from large populations. We performed a meta-analysis to compare arrhythmia-free survival, procedure time and complications rates between the two strategies. Methods: We searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to April 2020. Included studies were case-control studies, cohort studies, or randomized controlled trials that compared patients undergoing HPSD and LPLD strategies for AF ablation and reported either of the following outcomes: freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) including AF and atrial flutter, procedure time, or periprocedural complications. Data from each study were combined using the random-effects model to calculate odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Ten studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 2,189 patients were included (1,350 patients underwent HPSD strategy and 839 patients underwent LPLD strategy). Both HPSD and LPLD strategies resulted in a similar freedom from AT at 12-month follow-up (OR=1.36, 95% CI:0.91-2.04, p=0.13, Figure 1A). HPSD strategy did result in a significant reduction in total procedure time (WMD=47.34, 95% CI:29.47-65.21, p<0.001, Figure 1B) compared to LPSD. HPSD wasn’t associated with reduction in esophageal ulcer/arterioesophageal fistula (OR=0.35, 95%CI=0.12-1.06, p=0.06) or pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade (OR=0.96, 95%CI: 0.24-3.79, p=0.95) Conclusions: In this large meta-analysis both LPLD and HPSD are equally effective and safe. Although HPSD is often advocated to reduce esophageal injury, risk was similar between approaches. However, HPSD strategy significantly lowers procedure times.

AbstractThe clinical use of continuous bumetanide infusion for acute heart failure and volume overload is common. However, there is not enough supporting evidence for the use of continuous bumetanide infusion. Thus, we conducted this systematic review and meta‐analysis aiming to describe the treatment outcomes of continuous bumetanide infusion. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for eligible publications. Inclusion criteria were patients age ≥18 years with bumetanide infusion for heart failure, acute kidney injury (AKI) or volume overload. From 1564 citations, three studies (n = 94 patients) were included in the systematic review and meta‐analysis. The mean dose of bumetanide was 1.08 ± 0.43 mg/hour with a mean treatment duration of 45.09 ± 10.12 hours. Mean urine output in response to continuous bumetanide infusion was 1.88 mL/kg/hour (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72‐2.05). The incidence of AKI with continuous bumetanide infusion was 24.7% (95% CI, 8.2‐54.6). By using Pearson's correlation coefficient, increasing doses of bumetanide were correlated with increased urine output (P = .026) and increased incidence of AKI (P < .01). There was no correlation between increasing urine output and the incidence of AKI (P = .739). In conclusion, with available evidence, continuous bumetanide infusion may be used in the treatment of acute heart failure or volume overload with close monitoring for new‐onset or worsening AKI.

AbstractBackgroundBrugada syndrome (BrS) is an inherited arrhythmic disease associated with an increased risk of major arrhythmic events (MAE). Previous studies reported that a wide QRS complex may be useful as a predictor of MAE in BrS patients. We aimed to assess the correlation of wide QRS complex with MAE by a systematic review and meta‐analysis.MethodsWe comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to June 2019. Included studies were cohort and case control studies that reported QRS duration and the relationship between wide QRS complex (>120 milliseconds) and MAE (sudden cardiac death, sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular fibrillation, sustained ventricular tachycardia, or appropriate shock). Data from each study were combined using the random‐effects model.ResultsTwenty‐two studies from 2007 to 2018 were included in this meta‐analysis involving 4,814 BrS patients. The mean age was 46.1 ± 12.8 years. The patients were predominately men (77.6%). Wide QRS duration was an independent predictor of MAE (pooled risk ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval: 1.04‐2.30, P = .30, I2 = 38.4%). QRS duration was wider in BrS who had history of MAE (weight mean difference = 8.12 milliseconds, 95% confidence interval: 5.75‐10.51 milliseconds).ConclusionsOur study demonstrated that QRS duration is wider in BrS who had history of MAE, and a wide QRS complex is associated with 1.55 times higher risk of MAE in BrS populations. Wide QRS complex can be considered for risk stratification in prediction of MAE in patients with BrS, especially when considering implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator placement in asymptomatic patients.