Samaras, Athanasios

Abstract Background Although a rhythm control strategy is associated with an overall better prognosis in atrial fibrillation (AF), current guidelines suggest that only highly selected asymptomatic patients may be considered candidates for AF catheter ablation. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the association between symptom status and clinical outcomes in patients with AF. Methods A comprehensive search of Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus was conducted up until September 30, 2024. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by three reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool the evidence. Results A total of 36 studies, comprising 217,850 participants, were included. Frequentist analysis revealed no significant difference between symptomatic and asymptomatic AF patients in terms of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI)= (0.80, 1.17)], cardiovascular mortality (HR= 1.04, 95% CI= [0.72, 1.49]), thromboembolism (HR= 1.06, 95% CI= [0.87, 1.28]), stroke (HR= 1.06, 95% CI= [0.84, 1.34]), hospitalization (HR= 1.34, 95% CI= [0.89, 2.02]), and myocardial infarction (HR= 0.98, 95% CI= [0.70, 1.36]). However, symptomatic patients exhibited a 33% increased risk of new-onset heart failure (HR= 1.33, 95% CI= [1.19, 1.49]) and a 30% reduced risk of progression to permanent AF (HR= 0.70, 95% CI= [0.54, 0.89]). Bayesian analysis produced similar results, although the association between symptom status and new-onset heart failure was not statistically significant [HR = 1.27, 95% credible interval (CrI)= (0.76, 1.93); Bayes factor (BF10)= 1.2]. Symptomatic patients had higher odds of receiving antiarrhythmic drugs (odds ratio [OR]= 1.64, 95% CI= [1.33, 2.03]) and ablation therapy (OR= 1.47, 95% CI= [1.06, 2.05]) compared to their asymptomatic counterparts. Conclusions The risk of major clinical outcomes does not significantly differ between AF patients with and without symptoms. However, asymptomatic patients have a higher risk of progressing to permanent AF.

Abstract Background and Aims Current guidelines suggest that asymptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) is independently associated with increased risks of stroke and mortality compared with symptomatic AF. Considering that recent investigations have provided conflicting results, the present study aimed to evaluate the association between symptom status and clinical outcomes in patients with AF. Methods Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched until 25 March 2024. Triple-independent study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Evidence was pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Results Thirty-six studies (217 850 participants) were included. Based on the frequentist analysis, symptomatic individuals had no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) .97, 95% confidence interval (CI) .80–1.17], cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.04, 95% CI .72–1.49), thromboembolism (HR 1.06, 95% CI .87–1.28), stroke (HR 1.06, 95% CI .84–1.34), hospitalization (HR 1.34, 95% CI .89–2.02), and myocardial infarction (HR .98, 95% CI .70–1.36), compared to the asymptomatic group. Symptomatic patients had a 33% increased risk of new-onset heart failure (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.19–1.49) and a 30% lower risk of progression to permanent AF (HR .70, 95% CI .54–.89). The Bayesian analysis yielded comparable results, yet the association between symptom status and new-onset heart failure was not significant (HR 1.27, 95% credible interval .76–1.93; Bayes factor = 1.2). Symptomatic patients had higher odds of receiving antiarrhythmic drugs (odds ratio [OR] 1.64, 95% CI 1.33–2.03) and ablation therapy (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.06–2.05) compared to asymptomatic cases. Conclusions The risk of major clinical outcomes did not differ between individuals with and without AF-related symptoms. Asymptomatic patients had a greater hazard of progression to permanent AF.

Abstract Background and Aims Residual leaks are not infrequent after left atrial appendage occlusion. However, there is still uncertainty regarding their prognostic implications. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of residual leaks after left atrial appendage occlusion. Methods A literature search was conducted until 19 February 2023. Residual leaks comprised peri-device leaks (PDLs) on transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or computed tomography (CT), as well as left atrial appendage patency on CT. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to assess the clinical impact of residual leaks. Results Overall 48 eligible studies (44 non-randomized/observational and 4 randomized studies) including 61 666 patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent left atrial appendage occlusion were analysed. Peri-device leak by TEE was present in 26.1% of patients. Computed tomography-based left atrial appendage patency and PDL were present in 54.9% and 57.3% of patients, respectively. Transoesophageal echocardiography-based PDL (i.e. any reported PDL regardless of its size) was significantly associated with a higher risk of thromboembolism [pooled odds ratio (pOR) 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.52–2.74], all-cause mortality (pOR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.08–1.24), and major bleeding (pOR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03–1.22), compared with no reported PDL. A positive graded association between PDL size and risk of thromboembolism was noted across TEE cut-offs. For any PDL of >0, >1, >3, and >5 mm, the pORs for thromboembolism were 1.82 (95% CI: 1.35–2.47), 2.13 (95% CI: 1.04–4.35), 4.14 (95% CI: 2.07–8.27), and 4.44 (95% CI: 2.09–9.43), respectively, compared with either no PDL or PDL smaller than each cut-off. Neither left atrial appendage patency, nor PDL by CT was associated with thromboembolism (pOR 1.45 and 1.04, 95% CI: 0.84–2.50 and 0.52–2.07, respectively). Conclusions Peri-device leak detected by TEE was associated with adverse events, primarily thromboembolism. Residual leaks detected by CT were more frequent but lacked prognostic significance.