Syed, Saif

Introduction: Metabolic pharmacotherapies [Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i)] have shown benefit in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). It remains unclear whether the two classes would have additive effects. Methods: We performed a retrospective study using a de-identified federated database with 89 contributing health care organizations (HCO), including over 126 million patients (TriNetX Research Network, Cambridge, MA; date of data access: May 23, 2024). TriNetX regularly aggregates clinical data directly from participating HCOs, and performs extensive data quality and accuracy assessment. While TriNetX obfuscates institutional information relating to participating HCOs, a typical HCO includes a large academic health center with inpatient, outpatient, and specialty care services. We identified all patients with a diagnosis of Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, ICD-10: I50.3), and SGLT2i usage. We then categorized this patient population into two cohorts, including patients with concomitant GLP1RA use, and patients without GLP1RA use. For both cohorts, we collected data on patient demographics, and the outcomes of all-cause mortality, and all-cause hospitalization, occurring up to 10-years after the index diagnosis. We evaluated differences in outcome risk using hazards ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Prior to propensity score matching, we identified 114,329 patients, with 7931 patients receiving SGLT2i +GLP1RA vs 106398 receiving SGLT2i-alone. Majority (55.7%) identified as white and 24.4% as African Americans and >90% of the patients had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. After propensity matching, the rate of all-cause hospitalization within the combination group was lower than SGLT2i group (29.6% vs 32.4%, HR 0.76 [0.73- 0.79], P<0.001). All-cause mortality for the combination group was 6.8% versus 10.6% within the SGLT2i-alone group (HR 0.52 [0.47-0.56], P<0.001)). Conclusion: In this propensity-matched cohort, patients with HFpEF receiving GLP1RA and SGLT2i had lower rates of hospitalizations and all-cause mortality compared with those receiving SGLT2i alone. Large randomized controlled trials are warranted to corroborate these findings.

Background: Antithrombotic regimens play a pivotal role in averting complications and ischemic incidents post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in MI (myocardial infarction) patients. Bivalirudin stands as a viable alternative to unfractionated heparin in this cohort, demonstrating the efficacy and safety profiles. Aim: We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in MI (myocardial infarction) patients. Research Question : What is the efficacy and safety of Bivalirudin compared to unfractionated heparin in patients with MI undergoing PCI, specifically in terms of major bleeding, cardiovascular mortality, and other major adverse cardiovascular events? Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EBSCOhost/CINAHL, from January 1, 2000, through May 29, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin and with a study population of patients with MI undergoing PCI. Data extraction was done using a spreadsheet, and data analysis was done using RevMan 5.4.1 for meta-analysis. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were major bleeding, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke. Results: Our analysis included 11 RCTs, encompassing a total of 40,919 participants. When compared with unfractionated heparin, bivalirudin was associated with a significant reduction in major bleeding events (RR 0.66 [0.55 to 0.80]; p < 0.0001) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.79 [0.67 to 0.92]; p < 0.003). However, there were no significant differences between Bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 1.02 [0.91 to 1.13]; p = 0.76), all-cause mortality (RR 0.89 [0.78 to 1.01]; p = 0.08), MI (RR 0.99 [0.85 to 1.15]; p = 0.90), stent thrombosis (RR 1.12 [0.53 to 2.40]; p = 0.76), or stroke (RR 0.96 [0.73 to 1.26]; p = 0.75). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis indicates that in patients with MI undergoing PCI, Bivalirudin is associated with lower rates of major bleeding and cardiovascular mortality compared to unfractionated heparin. However, there were no significant differences observed in major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, or stent thrombosis between the two treatment groups.

Background: Persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) presents a significant management challenge, particularly in patients with concurrent heart failure. The effectiveness of catheter ablation compared to medical therapy for these patients remains under debate. Aim: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the outcomes of catheter ablation versus medical therapy for managing persistent AF. Research Question: How does catheter ablation compare to medical therapy in managing persistent AF considering outcomes like arrhythmia recurrence, hospitalizations, cardiac function, exercise capacity, and mortality? Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing catheter ablation with medical therapy in patients with persistent AF. Data sources included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrial.gov, Google Scholar, and CINAHL/EBSCOHOST, with studies selected based on predefined inclusion criteria. Primary outcomes assessed were recurrence of atrial arrhythmias, hospitalizations, changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), changes in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distance, and all-cause mortality. The data extraction was done using a spreadsheet, and the data analysis was done using RevMan 5.4.1: for meta-analysis Results: A total of 10 RCTs involving 1812 patients were included in the analysis. Compared to medical therapy, catheter ablation significantly reduced the recurrence of atrial arrhythmias (risk ratio [RR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-0.63, P < 0.0001). Hospitalization rates due to heart failure were also lower in the ablation group (RR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.44-0.73, P < 0.001). Improvements in LVEF were observed with a mean difference (MD) of 5.98% (95% CI: 3.81% to 8.15%, P < 0.00001). The performance on the 6MWT was better in the catheter ablation group, with an MD of 28.83 meters (95% CI: 8.61 to 49.05 meters, P = 0.005). Additionally, catheter ablation was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45-0.80, P = 0.00006). Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates that catheter ablation is superior to medical therapy in managing persistent atrial fibrillation. Catheter ablation offers significant benefits in reducing atrial arrhythmia recurrence, lowering hospitalization rates, improving cardiac function and exercise capacity, and reducing mortality. These findings support the consideration of catheter ablation as a preferred treatment strategy for patients with persistent AF.