Lee, Justin Z.

Background: The treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction has been the subject of numerous randomized controlled trials involving medications and cardiac implantable electronic device therapies. As newer effective pharmacological therapies suggest significant reductions in all-cause mortality, the role of additional device therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction deserves further scrutiny. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis on the effect of medication and device therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on all-cause mortality was performed. Randomized controlled trials published between January 1980 and July 2017 were identified using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials databases. Pcnetmeta package in R was used to calculate treatment arm–based estimated rates, rate ratios, and probability ranks with 95% credible intervals. Results: Combination therapy of ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors or ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers) with β-blockers (BBs) alone or in addition to implantable cardiac defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillators demonstrated a significant reduction of all-cause mortality when compared with placebo. By probability rank, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist combination therapies have the highest probability of being ranked the best treatment. There was no significant difference in the rate of mortality when comparing angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to implantable cardiac defibrillator+optimal pharmacological combination therapy. Conclusions: BB and renin-angiotensin system blockers alone or in combination with defibrillator device therapy have robust evidence for a reduction in mortality compared with placebo. The comparative efficacy of pharmacological therapy with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and device therapy deserves further investigation.

AbstractBackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Our primary aim was to evaluate patient‐centered outcomes and surrogate outcomes following catheter ablation (CA) of AF among patients with HFrEF compared to standard medical therapy with or without device therapy (atrioventricular node ablation and cardiac resynchronization therapy).MethodsA systematic literature review was performed limiting our searches to randomized control trials reporting outcomes of CA compared to standard medical therapy with or without device therapy were included. Patient‐centered outcomes were relative reduction in all‐cause mortality, heart failure readmissions, and recurrence of AF. Surrogate outcomes of interest were change in ejection fraction, change in peak oxygen consumption, reduction in brain natriuretic peptide levels, change in 6‐minute walk distance, and change in Minnesota living with heart failure score.ResultsSeven randomized control trials (Patient n = 721) met our inclusion criteria. All trials used radiofrequency energy for CA of AF. CA for AF was associated with significantly lower all‐cause mortality (Risk ratio [RR] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35‐0.76, P = 0.001, I2 = 0%), lower rate of heart failure readmission (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.46‐0.74, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%) and lower rate of AF recurrence (RR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.22‐0.50, P < 0.001, I2 = 68%) as compared to standard medical therapy. Surrogate outcomes showed a similar benefit favoring CA.Conclusion and RelevanceCatheter ablation for AF in HFrEF is associated with improvement in patient‐centered outcomes and surrogate outcomes when compared to standard medical therapy with or without device therapy.

Background: Trials suggest that bronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valve (EBV) implantation may produce similar effects as lung volume reduction surgery, by inducing atelectasis and reducing hyperinflation through a minimally invasive procedure. This study sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of BLVR with EBV for advanced emphysema. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials comparing EBV implantation versus standard medical treatment or sham bronchoscopy. The main outcome of interest was the percentage change of forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Results: Data analyzed from 5 randomized controlled trials with 703 patients revealed improvement in percentage change of forced expiratory volume in 1 second in EBV group compared with control group [weighted mean difference (WMD)=11.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 6.05-16.80; P<0.0001] and improvement in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score (WMD=−5.69; 95% CI, −8.67 to −2.70; P=0.0002). There is no difference shown in the 6-minute walking test (WMD=14.12; 95% CI, −4.71 to 32.95; P=0.14). The overall complication rate of EBV was not significantly different except for an increased rate of pneumothorax [relative risk (RR)=8.16; 95% CI, 2.21-30.11; P=0.002), any hemoptysis (RR=5.01; 95% CI, 1.12-22.49; P=0.04)] and valve migration (RR=8.64; 95% CI, 2.01-37.13; P=0.004). Conclusion: BLVR using EBV shows short-term improvement in lung function and quality of life, but with increased risk of minor hemoptysis, pneumothorax, and valve migration. Follow-up data on the studies are needed to determine its long-term efficacy.

Background Accurate determination of right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) is challenging because of the unique geometry of the right ventricle. Tricuspidannular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) and fractional area change (FAC) are commonly used echocardiographic quantitative estimates of RV function. Cardiac MRI (CMRI) has emerged as the gold standard for assessment of RVEF. We sought to summarise the available data on correlation of TAPSE and FAC with CMRI-derived RVEF and to compare their accuracy. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library databases for studies that assessed the correlation of TAPSE or FAC with CMRI-derived RVEF. Data from each study selected were pooled and analysed to compare the correlation coefficient of TAPSE and FAC with CMRI-derived RVEF. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with pulmonary hypertension. Results Analysis of data from 17 studies with a total of 1280 patients revealed that FAC had a higher correlation with CMRI-derived RVEF compared with TAPSE (0.56vs0.40, P=0.018). In patients with pulmonary hypertension, there was no statistical difference in the mean correlation coefficient of FAC and TAPSE to CMR (0.57vs0.46, P=0.16). Conclusions FAC provides a more accurate estimate of RV systolic function (RVSF) compared with TAPSE. Adoption of FAC as a routine tool for the assessment of RVSF should be considered, especially since it is also an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality. Further studies will be needed to compare other methods of echocardiographic measurement of RV function.

Background: Recognition of rates and causes of hard, patient-centered outcomes of death and cerebrovascular events (CVEs) after heart rhythm disorder management (HRDM) procedures is an essential step for the development of quality improvement programs in electrophysiology laboratories. Our primary aim was to assess and characterize death and CVEs (stroke or transient ischemic attack) after HRDM procedures over a 17-year period. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing HRDM procedures between January 2000 and November 2016 at the Mayo Clinic. Patients from all 3 tertiary academic centers (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) were included in the study. All in-hospital deaths and CVEs after HRDM procedures were identified and were further characterized as directly or indirectly related to the HRDM procedure. Subgroup analysis of death and CVE rates was performed for ablation, device implantation, electrophysiology study, lead extraction, and defibrillation threshold testing procedures. Results: A total of 48 913 patients (age, 65.7±6.6 years; 64% male) who underwent a total of 62 065 HRDM procedures were included in the study. The overall mortality and CVE rates in the cohort were 0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31–0.42) and 0.12% (95% CI, 0.09–0.16), respectively. Patients undergoing lead extraction had the highest overall mortality rate at 1.9% (95% CI, 1.34–2.61) and CVE rate at 0.62% (95% CI, 0.32–1.07). Among patients undergoing HRDM procedures, 48% of deaths directly related to the HDRM procedure were among patients undergoing device implantation procedures. Overall, cardiac tamponade was the most frequent direct cause of death (40%), and infection was the most common indirect cause of death (29%). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.76%, with the highest being in lead extraction procedures (3.08%), followed by device implantation procedures (0.94%). Conclusions: Half of the deaths directly related to an HRDM procedure were among the patients undergoing device implantation procedures, with cardiac tamponade being the most common cause of death. This highlights the importance of the development of protocols for the quick identification and management of cardiac tamponade even in procedures typically believed to be lower risk such as device implantation.

Objective Previous studies have suggested that statin pretreatment prevents contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). However, single randomised trials are limited in their number of patients. This meta-analysis aims to assess the role of statin use in CIN prevention, as well as to determine patient subgroups that will benefit from statin pre-treatment. Methodology We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing statin pretreatment versus placebo for preventing CIN. Our main outcome was the risk of CIN within 1–5 days after contrast administration. Results Data analysed from nine randomised studies with a total of 5143 patients, where 2559 received statins and 2584 received placebo, showed that statin pretreatment was associated with significant reduction in risk of CIN (MH-RR=0.47, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64, Z=4.49, p<0.00001). This beneficial effect of statin was also seen in patients with baseline renal impairment (MH-RR=0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72, p=0.0008) and also those who were cotreated with NAC (MH-RR=0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.83, p=0.01). Conclusions Statin pretreatment leads to significant reduction in CIN, and should be strongly considered in all patients who are planned for diagnostic and interventional procedures involving contrast-media administration.