Panjiyar, Binay Kumar

Background: Stroke is a devastating complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) have been introduced to reduce TAVR-related stroke by capturing or deflecting debris during the procedure. While these devices can capture embolic material, their clinical benefit in preventing stroke remains uncertain. We aimed to determine whether the use of CEPD during TAVR reduces the incidence of periprocedural stroke. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing TAVR with versus without CEPD. We searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs (randomized controlled trials) comparing CEPDs to no protection in TAVR patients from 2011 to May 2025. Nine RCTs involving a total of 11,608 patients (CEPD group n=5,953; control n=5,655) were included. Stroke outcomes were defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteria and categorized as- all stroke, disabling stroke, or non-disabling stroke. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a fixed-effects model. Heterogeneity also was measured. Results: Stroke rates were low and did not differ significantly between the CEPD (n=343) and control (n=319) groups. The incidence of all strokes was 1.96% with CEPD vs 1.88% without CEPD (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.75–1.15; p=0.50). Disabling stroke occurred in 0.79% of CEPD patients vs 0.95% of controls (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.10; p=0.16). Non-disabling stroke occurred in 1.26% of patients in both groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.8 -1.40; p=0.64). There was no significant heterogeneity across trials is (0) for all endpoints. Notably, the largest trial in the analysis (BHF PROTECT-TAVI, n=7,635) showed no difference in stroke rates with CEPD, aligning with the overall results. Subgroup analyses revealed a trend toward fewer disabling strokes with CEPD use, but this trend was not statistically significant. Conclusion: We found no significant stroke risk reduction with the use of CEPDs during TAVR. While a trend toward fewer disabling strokes was observed, it was not statistically significant. Routine use of CEPDs is not supported, and selective use in high-risk patients warrants further large RCTs.

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.