Shams, Mahmoud M.

ABSTRACT Observational studies comparing Impella and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO) in cardiogenic shock have reported inconsistent findings. We performed an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis, with exploratory matched‐cohort analyses where directly reportable propensity score–matched event‐level data were available. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 2026 for observational studies comparing Impella versus VA‐ECMO in adult patients with cardiogenic shock. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included all‐cause mortality, ICU outcomes, access site bleeding requiring transfusion, peripheral vascular complications, renal outcomes, and stroke. Random‐effects models using restricted maximum likelihood were applied. Fifteen observational studies including 22,618 patients were analyzed. In the primary crude analysis, Impella was not associated with a statistically significant difference in in‐hospital mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66−1.07; p = 0.15) with substantial heterogeneity ( I ² = 92.9%). However, leave‐one‐out analysis identified an influential registry study; its exclusion markedly reduced heterogeneity and favored Impella ( p < 0.01). In exploratory propensity score‐matched analysis, Impella was also associated with lower in‐hospital mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56−0.85, p < 0.01). Thirty‐day and 6‐month all‐cause mortality were neutral, whereas 12‐month mortality modestly favored Impella ( p = 0.048). Sensitivity analyses similarly resolved heterogeneity and favored Impella for selected secondary outcomes, including 6‐month mortality, acute kidney injury, and ischemic stroke. ICU mortality was neutral, while ICU length of stay was shorter with Impella ( p = 0.01). Impella was also associated with lower access site bleeding requiring transfusion ( p < 0.01), peripheral vascular complications ( p < 0.01), and hemorrhagic stroke ( p < 0.01). In this updated meta‐analysis of observational studies, the primary crude analysis of in‐hospital mortality was neutral overall but highly heterogeneous, whereas sensitivity and exploratory matched‐cohort analyses showed a more consistent association favoring Impella. Impella was also associated with lower bleeding and vascular complications and shorter ICU length of stay, although several outcomes remained sensitive to study‐level influence. These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the observational design, predominance of serious risk of bias, and strong potential for confounding by indication.

ABSTRACT Background The optimal long‐term antithrombotic strategy after apparently successful catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains uncertain, particularly in patients who meet conventional guideline thresholds for oral anticoagulation (OAC). Objectives To compare continuation versus cessation strategies of long‐term OAC after successful AF ablation and to quantify net clinical benefit (NCB) integrating thromboembolic and bleeding outcomes. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase from inception through February 2026 for randomized and comparative observational studies evaluating long‐term OAC continuation versus cessation (no OAC and/or switch to aspirin) after successful AF ablation. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 for randomized trials and a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. Random‐effects meta‐analyses used a restricted maximum likelihood estimator with Hartung–Knapp adjustment. NCB was calculated as: thromboembolic event rate − (1.5 × major bleeding rate). Results Six studies met the inclusion criteria (four randomized trials and two observational cohorts). Stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) events were reported in six studies and were not significantly different between OAC continuation and cessation strategies (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.24–1.99; p = 0.49). Systemic embolism (three studies) did not differ between groups ( p = 0.12). Major bleeding (five studies) was numerically higher with continued OAC but not statistically significant (OR 2.07; 95% CI 0.88–4.86; p = 0.09). In NCB analysis, continued OAC yielded more negative or near‐neutral NCB values, whereas, the cessation strategies were less negative or marginally positive; the fixed‐effect risk difference in NCB (continued OAC vs cessation) was +0.00067 (95% CI −0.00279 to +0.00413). Conclusion This meta‐analysis suggests that after successful AF ablation, continuing OAC does not significantly reduce stroke risk compared to cessation or switching to aspirin, but it may increase major bleeding. While NCB trends favor cessation, the low absolute event rates and the risk of silent AF recurrence necessitate caution.

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation is the most encountered arrhythmia in clinical settings, with an estimate of 6 million cases in the United States. A growing amount of evidence has been supporting the role of left atrial appendage in left sided atrial fibrillation with conflict results. We aim in this study to provide a more in-depth guide for optimal left sided atrial fibrillation ablation strategy. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus for published studies until May 2024. We included relevant studies that compared the left atrial appendage electrical isolation versus the standard ablation and reported our outcomes of interest. The main outcomes of the study were the recurrence of atrial arrhythmia and the incidence of stroke or transient ischemic attack during the follow-up period. Data were pooled as Mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with their 95% CI using a fixed-effect model. Results: Eleven studies with 3040 patients were included in the final analysis. Left atrial appendage electrical isolation was associated with a significant reduction in atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared to the standard ablation alone (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.48). However, it was also associated with a significant increase in stroke or transient ischemic attack incidence (OR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.09 to 3.12). Conclusion: Left atrial appendage electrical isolation led to a significantly lower atrial arrhythmia recurrence, but this was achieved with an increased risk of stroke and transient ischemic attack incidence during the follow-up period.

Background: Air pollution is a leading cause of cardiovascular diseases including ischemic heart disease and stroke contributing to millions of deaths, with elevated blood pressure, endothelial dysfunction, and systemic inflammation being some of the most important underlying mechanisms. Various studies showed a promising beneficial effect of indoor air purification on various health outcomes, including blood pressure. We aimed to assess the effect of indoor air purification on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and provide a rationale for home use of these filters. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus for published literature up to May 2024. We included studies that assessed air purification, including HEPA filters or electrostatic air filters, as an intervention compared to no intervention. The primary outcome of interest was mean changes in blood pressure both systolic and diastolic. Secondary outcomes were biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress. Mean difference (MD) and 95% CI was used in a fixed-effect model to analyze the data. Results: A total of 21 studies were included in our meta-analysis with a total of 1955 participants. Air purification was associated with a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD: -2.42, 95% CI: -3.42, -1.41), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD: -1.11, 95% CI: -1.76, -0.46). However, there was no significant changes in levels of inflammatory biomarkers or oxidative stress. Conclusion: Indoor air purification was associated with significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels, but questions arise whether these reductions are clinically relevant or not. Further studies should assess these findings. Conclusion: Indoor air purification was associated with significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels, but questions arise whether these reductions are clinically relevant or not. Further studies should assess these findings.