Sobhy, Ahmed

ABSTRACT Background Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has emerged as a non‐pharmacological alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Following the publication of recent CHAMPION‐AF and CLOSURE‐AF trials, an updated synthesis of evidence is warranted to clarify the long‐term comparative efficacy and safety of LAAO versus OAC in patients with AF. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LAAO with OAC in adults with AF. A comprehensive search of major databases was performed from inception to April 2026. The primary efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and stroke. The primary safety outcome was non–procedure‐related bleeding. Random‐effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Six RCTs including 7,004 patients (3,681 LAAO; 3,323 OAC) were analyzed. No statistically significant difference was observed for MACE (7.5% vs 6.9%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79‐1.34) or stroke (3.7% vs 3.2%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80‐1.43). LAAO was associated with a significantly lower risk of non‐procedure‐related bleeding (9.8% vs 16.7%; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52‐0.77), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 6.9% and an approximate number needed to treat of 15 based on crude pooled event rates over the observed trial follow‐up. Trial sequential analysis indicated that the accumulated evidence for MACE and stroke remained inconclusive. Comparator‐type subgroup analyses showed no significant interaction for MACE ( p = 0.67) or stroke ( p = 0.81) between contemporary predominantly‐DOAC and VKA comparator trials. Conclusions LAAO was associated with lower non‐procedure‐related bleeding, while no statistically significant differences were observed for MACE or stroke. The available efficacy evidence remains inconclusive regarding equivalence or non‐inferiority, and larger trials are needed. These findings support individualized consideration of LAAO when the long‐term bleeding burden of anticoagulation is clinically important.

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.

Introduction: Preeclampsia is a multisystem progressive disease of pregnancy, characterized by a new onset of hypertension (≥ 140/90 mm Hg) with proteinuria after the 20th week of gestation. There is a conflict between United States guidelines that recommend Low-dose aspirin (LDA) and United Kingdom guidelines that recommend High-dose aspirin (HDA) for the prevention of preeclampsia in high-risk pregnant women. After the latest study that recommends HDA and the absence of pairwise meta-analyses comparing two doses, we aimed to conduct a comprehensive pairwise meta-analysis to assess whether HDA is better than LDA in the prevention of preeclampsia. Methods: We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science (WOS) from inception until June 2025. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDA and HDA in high-risk pregnant women were included. Our primary outcome was the incidence of preeclampsia (PE), while secondary outcomes were Placental abruption, Pre-term delivery, and Intrauterine Growth Restriction (IUGR). Using random-effects models, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 8 RCTs with 1,290 patients from the United States, Canada, England, and different Asian countries were included, among whom 642 (49.8%) patients were randomized to HDA. All studies compared HDA (≥ 150 mg) and LDA (75 mg to 81 mg). Patients with LDA had a higher risk of Preeclampsia (RR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.19 to 2.44, p<0.001) compared to HDA. There was no significant difference between the LDA and HDA regarding Placental abruption, Pre-term delivery, and IUGR. With a pooled RR with a 95% CI (1.8, [0.91 to 3.54], P = 0.09), (1.25, [0.79 to 1.97], P = 0.34), (1.5, [0.93 to 2.42], P = 0.1), respectively. Conclusion: Among high-risk pregnant women, LDA was associated with a 71% higher incidence of preeclampsia than HDA. These results support the use of HDA as a preventive medication for preeclampsia in high-risk pregnant women.