Gadelmawla, Ahmed Farid

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.

Background: We conducted an updated meta-analysis of the routine use of cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices in Transcathter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR). This analysis follows the recent BHF PROTECTED TAVI trial which is the largest randomized controlled trial to date. Methods: Electronic databases were searched through April 2025 for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was overall incidence of stroke, disabling stroke and non-disabling stroke all reported at 2-5 days and 30 days were primary outcomes for our analyses. Results: 8 RCTs with a total of 11,692 patients were included. No statistically significant difference was found between CEP group and the control group in overall stroke incidence at 2-5 days and 30 days as the following (RR=0.95, 95%CI: [0.75,1.19], p=0.64) and (RR=0.93, 95%CI: [0.57,1.53], p=0.79). Similarly, the pooled analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of disabling stroke at 2-5 days (RR=0.70, 95%CI: [0.41,1.18], p=0.18), and at 30 days (RR=1.18, 95%CI: [0.36,3.87], p=0.78). CEP group and control group didn’t show statistically significant difference in non- disabling stroke at 2-5 days and 30 days as the results showed: (RR=1.17, 95%CI: [0.84,1.63], p=0.36) and (RR=0.86, 95%CI: [0.49,1.51], P=0.61) respectively. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis found no statistically significant evidence that cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices reduce the incidence of stroke—disabling or non-disabling in the 2-5 days following TAVR or after 30 days. Major bleeding, major vascular complication and AKI showed no statistically significant results indicating a neutral safety profile.

Background: Resistant hypertension (RH), defined as uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) despite ≥3 antihypertensive agents at maximally tolerated doses, remains a significant therapeutic challenge. Device-based renal denervation (RDN), using either radiofrequency (RF) or ultrasound (US) ablation, has shown promise in reducing BP. While both methods have demonstrated efficacy versus sham controls in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), direct comparisons remain limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RF- and US-based RDN in patients with resistant hypertension. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science through April 2025 for RCTs comparing RDN versus sham in RH. Eligible trials reported systolic or diastolic BP outcomes via ambulatory, office, or home measurements. Pooled mean differences (MD) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted by RDN modality and follow-up duration. Results: Seventeen RCTs met inclusion criteria. RDN significantly reduced ambulatory systolic BP (MD: −3.14 mmHg; 95% CI: −5.30 to −0.98; p=0.004) and diastolic BP (MD: −1.40 mmHg; 95% CI: −2.45 to −0.35; p=0.009) compared to sham. RF-based RDN showed consistent statistically significant reductions in both SBP and DBP across ambulatory and in-office measurements. In contrast, US-based RDN demonstrated variable efficacy, with only daytime DBP showing a marginal benefit (MD: −1.32 mmHg; p=0.04). Safety outcomes, including mortality, acute kidney injury, hypertensive crisis, and hypotension, were similar between groups. Conclusion: RDN offers a significant BP-lowering effect in resistant hypertension, with RF-based RDN yielding more consistent benefits across diverse measurement settings. US-based RDN showed limited but promising effects. Both techniques demonstrated acceptable safety profiles. Further head-to-head trials are needed to confirm long-term comparative effectiveness.

Introduction: Chronic total occlusion (CTO) is commonly encountered in patients with coronary artery disease and is associated with adverse outcomes, including increased short- and long-term mortality. While percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has shown potential clinical benefits in CTO patients, its comparative effectiveness against optimal medical therapy (OMT) remains debated. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of CTO-PCI versus OMT on key cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of science and Cochrane. We assessed outcomes including all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial reinfarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stroke, and repeat revascularization. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: 25 studies with a total of 22102 patients were included. Compared to OMT alone, CTO-PCI was associated with a significant reduction in the overall all-cause mortality (RR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.53–0.82; p=0.0002), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.52–0.82; p=0.0003) and MACE (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71–0.98; p=0.03). No statistically significant differences were observed between CTO-PCI and OMT in rates of Stroke (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.68–1.50; p=0.96), Subsequent PCI/CABG (revascularization) (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.78–1.29; p=0.97) or Heart Failure Hospitalization (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.37–1.59; p=0.48) Conclusion: This is the largest and most updated systematic review meta analysis for CTO-PCI vs OMT. Our findings show that CTO-PCI is associated with significantly lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to OMT. However, no significant differences were observed between the two strategies in the incidence of stroke, need for subsequent revascularization (PCI/CABG), or heart failure hospitalization.

ABSTRACT Background Pulmonary vein isolation is a standard therapy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a novel approach aiming to improve efficacy and safety over conventional thermal ablation (CTA) (radiofrequency and cryoballoon). This meta‐analysis evaluated outcomes of PFA versus thermal ablation in paroxysmal AF. Methods Electronic databases were searched through May 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared the efficacy and safety of PFA versus CTA. The primary outcome was AF recurrence. Summary estimates were conducted using random effects. Results A total of six studies, involving 1928 patients, were included. The incidence of AF recurrence was significantly lower among patients treated with PFA (risk ratio [RR] 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53–0.85). PFA was associated with a lower incidence of any atrial arrhythmia recurrence (RR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.61–0.99). The total procedure duration was significantly shorter with PFA (mean difference −21.46 min (95% CI: −26.04 to −16.88)), but there was no difference in fluoroscopy time. The rates of esophageal injury and phrenic nerve palsy were lower with PFA. However, the data were limited for these two outcomes, and a meta‐analysis was not conducted for them. There was no difference between the two groups in the incidence of stroke or pericardial tamponade. Conclusion Among patients with paroxysmal AF undergoing catheter ablation, PFA is associated with favorable outcomes, including lower recurrence and shorter procedure time compared to conventional ablation modalities.

Background/Objectives: Esaxerenone, a novel non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, has shown promising results in the treatment of essential hypertension (HTN). This study aims to comprehensively analyze the effectiveness of esaxerenone to control BP in patients with essential HTN. Methods: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane Library from inception until January 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing esaxerenone with standard HTN usual care. The primary outcome of interest was mean changes in sitting systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Other secondary outcomes were mean changes in 24 h-SBP and 24 h-DBP, and target BP achievement. Safety outcomes, such as adverse events and increased levels of potassium/uric acid, were also assessed. Results: Our meta-analysis included four studies with a total of 1981 patients, all conducted in Japan. Esaxerenone demonstrated dose-dependent blood pressure reductions. At 5 mg, sitting DBP decreased by 4.22 mmHg (95% CI −8.72 to 0.29; p = 0.07) and SBP by 9.07 mmHg (95% CI −17.69 to −0.45; p = 0.04), while the 1.25 mg dose showed smaller, non-significant reductions. For 24 h measurements, only the 5 mg dose achieved significant reductions. Target BP achievement increased by 48% overall (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.96; p = 0.007), with stronger effects at 5 mg (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.08; p = 0.04). Esaxerenone significantly reduced nocturnal SBP by 10.62 mmHg (95% CI −14.01 to −7.23; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In patients with essential HTN, esaxerenone was shown to be safe and well-tolerated compared with usual care. Long-term data on safety is warranted.

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.