Amin, Ahmed Mazen

Background: Pulsatile perfusion is a developing technique that attempts to mimic the natural pulsatile flow of blood during cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP). Purpose: Our meta-analysis was done to evaluate the effects of pulsatile perfusion in CPB compared to non-pulsatile on hospital stay, ICU stay, and intubation time. Methods: Randomized control trials that evaluated the implementation of pulsatile perfusion during CPB were identified by a literature search of the following databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Central, and Embase) up to February 2024. Results: Our search yielded 33 trials with 3174 patients, the analysis showed that pulsatile perfusion led to a significant decrease in hospital stay [MD = -1.38, 95% CI (-2.51, -0.25), P = 0.016], ICU stay [MD = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.82, -0.13), P = 0.007], intubation time [MD = -3.73, 95% CI (-5.42, -2.04), P < 0.001]. However, no significant difference between the two regimens was detected in the adult subgroup when we performed sungroup analysis based on the age for hospital stay and ICU stay outcomes [MD = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.95, 0.33), P = 0.334] and [MD = -3.73, 95% CI (-5.42, -2.04), P < 0.001] respectively. Conclusion: Pulsatile perfusion showed positive effects on hospital stay, ICU stay, and intubation time. However, there was no difference between the two methods on hospital and ICU stay in the adult’s subgroup. Also, the outcomes showed significant heterogeneity, which requires more robust RCTs to be conducted to increase the quality and the certainty of evidence.

Refractory angina affects patients’ quality of life around the world. Coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is a new therapeutic approach that has been investigated in recent years. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSR for refractory angina. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and CENTRAL searches until May 2024. Dichotomous data were pooled using risk ratio (RR), and continuous data were pooled using mean difference (MD), both with a 95% confidence interval (CI), using (R version 4.3). With the inclusion of three RCTs, our cohort comprised a total of 180 patients. Compared with the control group, after 6 months, CSR was significantly associated with a decreased mean change of Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class [MD: −0.54 with 95% CI (−0.80 to −0.27), P < 0.01], a decreased number of patients in the CCS class III/IV [RR: 0.56 with 95% CI (0.38–0.84), P < 0.01], and increased exercise time [MD: 50.46 with 95% CI (9.47–91.45), P = 0.02]. However, there was no significant difference between CSR and the control group in double products, all Seattle Angina Questionnaire domains, and safety outcomes. CSR has been shown to reduce angina severity by lowering CCS class scores and increasing exercise time. Large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm its effectiveness in patients with refractory angina.

Abstract Background Pulsed‐field ablation (PFA) has emerged as an innovative alternative to radiofrequency (RF) and cryoablation because it selectively targets myocardial tissue. Thus, we aim to estimate the efficacy and safety of PFA versus thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis were retrieved from PubMed, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL through September 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42023480321 Results We included 17 studies with a total of 2255 patients. PFA was significantly associated with a decreased incidence of AF recurrence (RR: 0.66 with 95% CI [0.51, 0.87], p = .003). However, there was no significant difference between PFA and thermal ablation in arrhythmia recurrence (RR: 0.92 with 95% CI [0.74, 1.46], p = .42). PFA was significantly associated with decreased total procedure time (MD: −15.15 with 95% CI [−20.23, −10.07], p < .00001), decreased heart rate change (MD: −7.39 with 95% CI [−12.16, −2.62], p = .002), decreased phrenic nerve palsy (RR: 0.38 with 95% CI [0.15, 0.98], p = .05), and reduced esophageal lesions (RR: 0.09 with 95% CI [0.01, 0.69], p = .02). On the contrary, PFA was significantly associated with increased pericardial tamponade (RR: 6.14 with 95% CI [1.43, 26.33], p = .01). Conclusion PFA was significantly associated with decreased AF recurrence, total procedure time, heart rate change, phrenic nerve palsy, esophageal lesion, and increased incidence of pericardial tamponade compared with thermal ablation.

Abstract Background: Newer generation ultrathin strut stents are associated with less incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the short term. However, its long-term effect on different cardiovascular outcomes remains unknown. Objectives: We aim to identify the effects of newer-generation ultrathin-strut stents vs. standard thickness second-generation drug eluting stents (DES) on long term outcomes of revascularization in coronary artery disease. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registries that compare newer-generation ultrathin-strut (<70 mm) with thicker-strut (>70 mm) DES to evaluate cardioprotective effects over a period of up to 5 years. Primary outcome was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary outcomes included the components of TLF, stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death were pooled as the standardized mean difference between the two groups from baseline to endpoint. Results: We included 19 RCTs and two prospective registries (96756 patients) in this analysis. The overall effect on the primary outcome was in favor of second-generation ultrathin struts stents in terms of TLF at ≥ one year, ≥ two years, and ≥ three years (P value= 0.01, 95% CI [0.75, 0.96]), P value=0.003, 95% CI [0.77, 0.95]), P value= 0.007, 95% CI [0.76, 0.96]), respectively. However, there was no reported benefit in terms of TLF when we compared the two groups at ≥ five years (P value= 0.21), 95% CI [0.85, 1.04]). Some of the reported components of the primary and secondary outcomes, such as TLR, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and TVMI, showed the same pattern as the TLF outcome. Conclusion: Ultrathin-strut DES showed a beneficial effect over thicker strut stents for up to three years. However, at the 5-year follow-up, the ultrathin strut did not differ in terms of TLF, TLR, TVR, and TVMI compared with standard-thickness DES, with similar risks of patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), MI, ST, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality.