Navaravong, Leenhapong

Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) and high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation (HPSD) are emerging techniques for treating atrial fibrillation (AF), offering promising results compared to cryoballoon ablation (CBA). This network meta-analysis aims to evaluates the efficacy and safety of PFA, HPSD, and CBA. Method: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EBSCO Information Services were systematically searched for relevant studies until April 2024. The primary outcome is freedom from atrial arrhythmia. A random-effects model was used for data synthesis, and P-scores were employed for outcome ranking. Point estimation (odd ratios) was calculated for comparisons. Results: Fifteen studies were included in our network meta-analysis, involving 5,093 atrial fibrillation patients: 812 (16%), 2,659 (52%), and 1,622 (32%) patients underwent PFA, CBA, and HPSD, respectively. PFA demonstrated the highest efficacy (P-scores 99.3%). Point estimation between PFA and HPSD, and PFA and CBA, were 1.394 (95% CI: 1.047-1.858) and 1.479 (95% CI: 1.134–1.929), respectively. PFA had higher complications compared to HPSD (OR=4.44, 95% CI: 1.405-14.031) and CBA (OR=2.581, 95% CI: 0.992–6.720). HPSD had the shortest fluoroscopic time (P-scores 100%), while CBA had the longest (P-scores 0%). PFA had the shortest procedural time compared to CBA and HPSD with P-scores of 100% 50% and 0%, respectively. Conclusion: PFA showed higher efficacy but higher complication risk than HPSD and CBA. HPSD and CBA demonstrated similar efficacy and safety.

AbstractIntroductionDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs) become the recommended treatment over vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in patients with non‐valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, their effectiveness in reducing cognitive impairment and dementia compared to VKA remains unclear.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted on Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database. Randomized controlled trials, cohort, or case–control study that assessed incident dementia between AF patients who received DOAC compared to VKA were selected. Relevant study characteristics and the number of incident dementia diagnosis or hazard ratios (HRs) for incident dementia and each dementia subtypes were extracted. Random‐effects model was used to perform meta‐analysis. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used to estimate effect sizes for continuous data.ResultsTwelve cohort studies comprising 1 451 069 individuals were included. The incidence of dementia was lower in AF patients prescribed DOACs compared to VKA (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83–0.93, I 2 = 61.2%). A lower incident dementia in DOACs group relative to VKA was significantly observed in those less than 75 years of age (< 65 years, HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.72–0.97, I 2 = 0%); 65–74 years, HR 0.86 (95% CI 0.81–0.92, I 2 = 55.4%); and ≥ 75 years, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.74–1.55, I 2 = 92.5%)) and for the subgroup of patients with vascular dementia (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.824–0.997, I 2 = 0%).ConclusionsThis meta‐analysis reveals a reduction in incidence of dementia in AF patients prescribed DOACs compared to VKA, particularly in those less than 75 years old and in the vascular dementia subtype.

Abstract Background: The relationships between exercise timing and health outcomes including anthropometric indices, metabolic markers, and sleep health have not been clearly established. To gain better insights, we performed the meta-analysis to determine the effects of morning versus evening exercise on various health outcomes. Methods: We collected studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception to March 2023 to perform a meta-analysis. Exercise is defined as performing activity at least moderate intensity. For the outcomes of interest, the mean differences (MD) were employed using a random-effects model, the generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird. Results: A total of 716 patients were analyzed from 14 studies including randomized controlled trial and observational studies. We found no significant associations between exercise timing and several health-related parameters. Specifically, the data showed no notable differences in body weight (MD: -0.12 kg [95% CI −0.81 to 0.58]) and BMI (MD: -0.07 kg/m2 [95% CI −0.46 to 0.32]) when comparing morning and evening exercise sessions. Similarly, sleep latency was not significantly affected by exercise timing (MD: -2.24 minutes [95% CI −5.83 to 1.35]). Furthermore, changes in metabolic biomarkers, including LDL (MD: -6.64 mg/dL [95% CI −20.08 to 6.79]) and HDL (MD: 0.09 mg/dL [95% CI 0 to 0.17]), were not significantly associated with the timing of exercise. Conclusion: This meta-analysis found no significant relationship between exercise timing and health outcomes including anthropometric indices, metabolic markers, and sleep health. While considered as hypothesis generating, timing of exercise should equally prune patients’ health outcomes.

AbstractIntroductionCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a standard treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, there is still a gap of evidence in congenital heart disease (CHD) patients regarding resynchronization therapy.MethodsWe performed a meta‐analysis and systematic review of CHD patients who received CRT implantation. We comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database from inception to June 2023. Studies that reported response rate to CRT, total mortality rate, change in QRS duration, change in left ventricular ejection fraction, and change in New York Heart Association functional class were included.ResultsA total of 14 studies were included in the study. There were 10 studies that reported response rates after implantation. The overall response rate to CRT in CHD patients was 68% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61%–75%, I2 32%). The response rates in patients with systemic right ventricle (RV), systemic left ventricle (LV), and single ventricle were 58% (95% CI 46%–70%, I2 0%), 80% (95% CI 74%–86% I2 14%), and 67% (95% CI 49%–80% I2 0%). Response to CRT in systemic RV was inferior to systemic LV with an odds ratio of 0.38 (95% CI 0.15–0.95, I2 38%). The total mortality rate from seven studies was 12% (95% CI 8%–18%, I2 55%). The parameters which represented ventricular dyssynchrony improved after CRT implantation.ConclusionThe overall response rate to CRT in CHD was 68%. Patients with systemic RV had a lower response rate to CRT when compared to patients with systemic LV. The total mortality rate after CRT implantation was 12%.

AbstractBackgroundHigh‐power short‐duration (HPSD) atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation with a power of 40–50 W was proved to be safe and effective. Very high‐power short‐duration (vHPSD) AF ablation is a novel method using >50 W to obtain more durable AF ablation. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vHPSD ablation compared with HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation.MethodsA literature search for studies that reported AF ablation outcomes, including short‐term freedom from atrial arrhythmia, first‐pass isolation (FPI) rate, procedure time, and major complications, was conducted utilizing MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. All relevant studies were included in this analysis. A random‐effects model of network meta‐analysis and surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were used to rank the treatment for all outcomes.ResultsA total of 29 studies with 9721 patients were included in the analysis. According to the SUCRA analysis, HPSD ablation had the highest probability of maintaining sinus rhythm. Point estimation showed an odds ratio of 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2–1.9) between HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation and an odds ratio of 1.3 (95% CI: 0.78–2.2) between vHPSD ablation and conventional power ablation. While the odds ratio of FPI between HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation was 3.6 (95% CI: 1.5–8.9), the odds ratio between vHPSD ablation and conventional power ablation was 2.2 (95% CI: 0.61–8.6). The procedure times of vHPSD and HPSD ablations were comparable and, therefore, shorter than that of conventional power ablation. Major complications were low in all techniques.ConclusionvHPSD ablation did not yield higher efficacy than HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation. With the safety concern, vHPSD ablation outcomes were comparable with those of other techniques.

AbstractBackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently become a promising option for the near‐natural restoration of electrical activation. However, the clinical relevance of therapeutic effects in individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and dyssynchrony remains unknown.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until June 2022. Data from each study was combined using a random‐effects model, the generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird, to calculate standard mean differences and pooled incidence ratio, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 772 HFrEF patients were analyzed from 15 observational studies per protocol. The success rate of LBBAP implantation was 94.8% (95% CI 89.9–99.6, I2 = 79.4%), which was strongly correlated with shortening QRS duration after LBBAP implantation, with a mean difference of −48.10 ms (95% CI −60.16 to −36.05, I2 = 96.7%). Over a period of 6–12 months of follow‐up, pacing parameters were stable over time. There were significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end‐systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular end‐diastolic volume (LVEDV) with mean difference of 16.38% (95% CI 13.13–19.63, I2 = 90.2%), −46.23 ml (95% CI −63.17 to −29.29, I2 = 86.82%), −7.21 mm (95% CI −9.71 to −4.71, I2 = 84.6%), and −44.52 ml (95% CI −64.40 to −24.64, I2 = 85.9%), respectively.ConclusionsLBBAP was associated with improvements in both cardiac function and electrical synchrony. The benefits of LBBAP in individuals with HFrEF and dyssynchrony should be further validated by randomized studies.

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently become a promising option for the near-natural restoration of electrical activation. However, the clinical relevance of therapeutic effects in individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and dyssynchrony remains unknown. Methods & Results: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until June 2022. Data from each study was combined using a random-effects model, the generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird, to calculate standard mean differences and pooled incidence ratio, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 772 HFrEF patients were analyzed from 15 observational studies per protocol. The success rate of LBBAP implantation was 94.8% (95% CI 89.9 to 99.6, I 2 = 79.4%), which was strongly correlated with shortening QRS duration after LBBAP implantation, with a mean difference of −48.10 msec (95% CI −60.16 to −36.05, I 2 = 96.7%). Over a period of 6–12 months of follow-up, pacing parameters were stable over time. There were significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) with mean difference of 16.38% (95% CI 13.13 to 19.63 I 2 = 90.2 %), −46.23 mL (95% CI −63.17 to −29.29, I 2 = 86.82%), −7.21 mm (95% CI −9.71 to −4.71, I 2 = 84.6%), and −44.52 mL (95% CI −64.40 to −24.64, I 2 = 85.9 %), respectively . Conclusions: LBBAP was associated with improvements in both cardiac function and electrical synchrony. The benefits of LBBAP in individuals with HFrEF and dyssynchrony should be further validated by randomized studies.

AbstractIntroductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is increasingly performed worldwide. As comfort with AF ablation increases, the procedure is increasingly used in patients that are older and in those with more comorbidities. However, it is not well established whether AF ablation in the elderly, especially those >75 years old, has comparable safety and efficacy to younger populations.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety profiles in patients older than 75 years undergoing AF ablation with younger patients.MethodsDatabases from EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane, were searched from inception through September 2021. Studies that compared the success rates in AF catheter ablation and all complications rates between patients who were older vs under 75 years were included. Effect estimates from the individual studies were extracted and combined using random effect, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird.ResultsTwenty‐seven observational studies were included in the analysis consisting of 363,542 patients who underwent AF ablation. Comparing patients older than 75 years old to younger patients, there was no difference in the success of ablation rates between elderly and younger patients (pooled OR 0.85: 95% CI:0.69–1.05, p = .131). On the other hand, AF ablation in the elderly was associated with higher complication rates (pooled OR 1.42: 95% CI:1.21–1.68, p < .001).ConclusionAs AF ablation is expanded to elderly populations, our study found that AF ablation success rates were similar in both elderly and younger patients. However, older patients experience higher rates of complications that should be considered when offering the procedure and as a means to improve outcomes with future innovations.

AbstractBackgroundIn the modern era, atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation trend has been shifted toward same‐day discharge (SDD), from a traditional overnight stay. Yet, recent studies have not well stated the safety profiles which remained poor‐understood and dispersed. We hence performed systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the adverse outcomes of SDD in comparison with an overnight stay.MethodsDatabases were searched through January 2021. Effect estimates from the individual studies were extracted and combined using random‐effects, generic inverse variance method of der Simonian and Laird. The primary outcomes included total cumulative complications and immediate complications following AF ablation.ResultsTen observational studies were met our inclusion criteria, comprising of total population of 11,660 patients, with SDD 51.3%. For total cumulative complications, there were no differences observed between SDD and overnight stay (5.2% vs. 6.2%: pooled OR 0.77: 95% CI 0.55–1.08, p = .13 with I2 = 27.1%). In addition, comparable immediate complications were also demonstrated (5.2 % vs. 4.3: pooled OR 1.08: 95% CI 0.72–1.62, p = .718, with I2 = 37.3 %).ConclusionOur study suggested that SDD had similar complication rates, both total cumulative and immediate outcomes, compared with overnight stay in selected patients following AF ablation. Nevertheless, randomized control trials are warranted to validate the findings.

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.