Citations

ABSTRACT Stroke remains one of the most devastating complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Although cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPDs) have emerged to mitigate patients' risks, their impact on stroke risk, as well as other clinical and neurocognitive outcomes after TAVI, remains uncertain. We aimed to assess whether CEPDs alleviate stroke risks and neurocognitive outcomes after TAVI. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and the Cochrane CENTRAL from inception until May 2025. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of CEPD compared to the control group (no CEPD) in adult patients (> 18 years) undergoing TAVI. The primary endpoint was the incidence of all‐cause stroke. In contrast, the secondary endpoints included disabling stroke, systemic bleeding, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Additionally, we assessed neurological outcomes, including changes in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, and the presence of new ischemic lesions. Nine RCTs comprising 11,696 patients were included in the final analysis. The use of CEPDs showed no statistical difference in reducing all‐cause stroke compared to the control group (OR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.73–1.15], p = 0.44). Additionally, there was no significant difference in other studies' secondary outcomes, including disabling stroke, MACCE, systemic bleeding, or neurological outcomes, such as worsening NISSS, decline in MoCA score, and the presence of new ischemic lesions. The use of CEPD during TAVI showed no benefit in reducing the risks of all‐cause stroke and other neurological outcomes studied.

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.

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.

Abstract Introduction Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have reduced restenosis and reintervention of femoropopliteal lesions compared to uncoated percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA). However, limited data are available on different dosages of the DCBs. Purpose We aimed to give a comprehensive analysis in this regard and update the current evidence. Methods We searched Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed, and WOS from inception till February 2024 to include all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that addressed different dosages of DCBs in femoropopliteal lesions. The primary endpoint was all-cause death, primary patency, and amputation at six months, while the secondary outcomes were all-cause death, primary patency, and amputation at 12 months. Dichotomous data were pooled using Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) in a random-effect model. Results A total of 21 studies, including 4081 patients in the analysis. Low-dose DCB was associated with high rates of primary patency compared to the standard dose at both 6 and 12 months of follow-up with the following values (OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.48 to 4.08, and 1.93, 95% CI: 1.5 to 2.49, receptively). Also, low-dose DCB reduced the incidence of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) compared to the standard dose at 12 months (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.65). Regarding high-dose DCB, higher primary patency rates were observed when compared to standard doses at 6 and 12 months (OR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.19 to 2.99, and 5.47, 95% CI: 4.31 to 6.95, respectively). Moreover, high-dose DCB reduced the incidence of CD-TLR at 6 and 12 months of follow-up (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.63, and 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.84, respectively). Conclusion Low-dose DCBs were associated with higher primary patency without significant differences in all-cause mortality or amputation. On the other hand, high-dose DCBs were associated with a higher incidence of amputation without significant differences in other studied outcomes.Low dose Paclitaxel coated balloon vs CoHigh dose Paclitaxel coated balloon vs C