Prasitlumkum, Narut

AbstractIntroductionBrugada syndrome is an inherited arrhythmic disease associated with major arrhythmic events (MAE). The importance of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in Brugada syndrome is well recognized; however, ventricular arrhythmia risk stratification remains challenging and controversial. We aimed to assess the association of type of syncope with MAE via systematic review and meta‐analysis.MethodsWe comprehensively searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2021. Included studies were cohort (prospective or retrospective) studies that reported the types of syncope (cardiac, unexplained, vasovagal, and undifferentiated) and MAE. Data from each study were combined using the random‐effects, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsSeventeen studies from 2005 to 2019 were included in this meta‐analysis involving 4355 Brugada syndrome patients. Overall, syncope was significantly associated with an increased risk of MAE in Brugada syndrome (OR = 3.90, 95% CI: 2.22–6.85, p < .001, I2 = 76.0%). By syncope type, cardiac (OR = 4.48, 95% CI: 2.87–7.01, p < .001, I2 = 0.0%) and unexplained (OR = 4.71, 95% CI: 1.34–16.57, p = .016, I2 = 37.3%) syncope was significantly associated with increased risk of MAE in Brugada syndrome. Vasovagal (OR = 2.90, 95% CI: 0.09–98.45, p = .554, I2 = 70.9%) and undifferentiated syncope (OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.00–4.03, p = .050, I2 = 64.6%, respectively) were not.ConclusionOur study demonstrated that cardiac and unexplained syncope was associated with MAE risk in Brugada syndrome populations but not in vasovagal syncope and undifferentiated syncope. Unexplained syncope is associated with a similar increased risk of MAE compared to cardiac syncope.

AbstractBackgroundHigh‐power short‐duration (HPSD) atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation with a power of 40–50 W was proved to be safe and effective. Very high‐power short‐duration (vHPSD) AF ablation is a novel method using >50 W to obtain more durable AF ablation. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vHPSD ablation compared with HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation.MethodsA literature search for studies that reported AF ablation outcomes, including short‐term freedom from atrial arrhythmia, first‐pass isolation (FPI) rate, procedure time, and major complications, was conducted utilizing MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. All relevant studies were included in this analysis. A random‐effects model of network meta‐analysis and surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) were used to rank the treatment for all outcomes.ResultsA total of 29 studies with 9721 patients were included in the analysis. According to the SUCRA analysis, HPSD ablation had the highest probability of maintaining sinus rhythm. Point estimation showed an odds ratio of 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2–1.9) between HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation and an odds ratio of 1.3 (95% CI: 0.78–2.2) between vHPSD ablation and conventional power ablation. While the odds ratio of FPI between HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation was 3.6 (95% CI: 1.5–8.9), the odds ratio between vHPSD ablation and conventional power ablation was 2.2 (95% CI: 0.61–8.6). The procedure times of vHPSD and HPSD ablations were comparable and, therefore, shorter than that of conventional power ablation. Major complications were low in all techniques.ConclusionvHPSD ablation did not yield higher efficacy than HPSD ablation and conventional power ablation. With the safety concern, vHPSD ablation outcomes were comparable with those of other techniques.

AbstractBackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently become a promising option for the near‐natural restoration of electrical activation. However, the clinical relevance of therapeutic effects in individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and dyssynchrony remains unknown.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until June 2022. Data from each study was combined using a random‐effects model, the generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird, to calculate standard mean differences and pooled incidence ratio, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 772 HFrEF patients were analyzed from 15 observational studies per protocol. The success rate of LBBAP implantation was 94.8% (95% CI 89.9–99.6, I2 = 79.4%), which was strongly correlated with shortening QRS duration after LBBAP implantation, with a mean difference of −48.10 ms (95% CI −60.16 to −36.05, I2 = 96.7%). Over a period of 6–12 months of follow‐up, pacing parameters were stable over time. There were significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end‐systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular end‐diastolic volume (LVEDV) with mean difference of 16.38% (95% CI 13.13–19.63, I2 = 90.2%), −46.23 ml (95% CI −63.17 to −29.29, I2 = 86.82%), −7.21 mm (95% CI −9.71 to −4.71, I2 = 84.6%), and −44.52 ml (95% CI −64.40 to −24.64, I2 = 85.9%), respectively.ConclusionsLBBAP was associated with improvements in both cardiac function and electrical synchrony. The benefits of LBBAP in individuals with HFrEF and dyssynchrony should be further validated by randomized studies.

AbstractIntroductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is increasingly performed worldwide. As comfort with AF ablation increases, the procedure is increasingly used in patients that are older and in those with more comorbidities. However, it is not well established whether AF ablation in the elderly, especially those >75 years old, has comparable safety and efficacy to younger populations.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety profiles in patients older than 75 years undergoing AF ablation with younger patients.MethodsDatabases from EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane, were searched from inception through September 2021. Studies that compared the success rates in AF catheter ablation and all complications rates between patients who were older vs under 75 years were included. Effect estimates from the individual studies were extracted and combined using random effect, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird.ResultsTwenty‐seven observational studies were included in the analysis consisting of 363,542 patients who underwent AF ablation. Comparing patients older than 75 years old to younger patients, there was no difference in the success of ablation rates between elderly and younger patients (pooled OR 0.85: 95% CI:0.69–1.05, p = .131). On the other hand, AF ablation in the elderly was associated with higher complication rates (pooled OR 1.42: 95% CI:1.21–1.68, p < .001).ConclusionAs AF ablation is expanded to elderly populations, our study found that AF ablation success rates were similar in both elderly and younger patients. However, older patients experience higher rates of complications that should be considered when offering the procedure and as a means to improve outcomes with future innovations.

AbstractBackgroundReal‐world data on atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation outcomes in obese populations have remained scarce, especially the relationship between obesity and in‐hospital AF ablation outcome.HypothesisObesity is associated with higher complication rates and higher admission trend for AF ablation.MethodsWe drew data from the US National Inpatient Sample to identify patients who underwent AF ablation between 2005 and 2018. Sociodemographic and patients' characteristics data were collected, and the trend, incidence of catheter ablation complications and mortality were analyzed, and further stratified by obesity classification.ResultsA total of 153 429 patients who were hospitalized for AF ablation were estimated. Among these, 11 876 obese patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11 422–12 330) and 10 635 morbid obese patients (95% CI: 10 200–11 069) were observed. There was a substantial uptrend admission, up to fivefold, for AF ablation in all obese patients from 2005 to 2018 (p < .001). Morbidly obese patients were statistically younger, while coexisting comorbidities were substantially higher than both obese and nonobese patients (p < .01) Both obesity and morbid obesity were significantly associated with an increased risk of total bleeding, and vascular complications (p < .05). Only morbid obesity was significantly associated with an increased risk of ablation‐related complications, total infection, and pulmonary complications (p < .01). No difference in‐hospital mortality was observed among obese, morbidly obese, and nonobese patients.ConclusionOur study observed an uptrend in the admission of obese patients undergoing AF ablation from 2005 through 2018. Obesity was associated with higher ablation‐related complications, particularly those who were morbidly obese.

AbstractIntroductionReal‐world data on atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation among moderate and advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients have so far remained scarce, especially in‐hospital AF ablation outcomes.MethodsWe drew data from the US National Inpatient Sample to identify hospitalized patients who underwent AF ablation between 2005 and 2018, and further stratified by CKD classification. We assessed the trend of AF ablation, as well as its complications.ResultsA total of 152 630 patients who were primarily hospitalized for AF and underwent ablation were estimated. Among these, CKD patients were found in a total of 1509 participants, with 978, 206, and 325 under CKD3, CKD4, and CKD5/ESKD, respectively. There was a significant increment in admission rates for AF ablation in the CKD population across all CKD classifications (p < .001). All CKD patients were statistically older, with higher coexisting comorbidities, while hypertension was found substantially lower than non‐CKD patients (p ≤ .001). Importantly, CKD, especially CKD3 and CKD5/ESKD, was significantly associated with an increased risk of total complications, and total bleeding, Neurological complications were found statistically lower in CKD patients (p = .029), and no mortality rates were significantly different (p = .287).ConclusionOur study observed an increase in admission trends for AF ablation among moderate and advanced CKD patients from 2005 to 2018. CKD was strongly associated with higher procedure‐related complications and bleeding, but neurological safety profiles and mortalities rates were nonsignificantly different.

AbstractBackgroundQRS area, a three‐dimensional QRS complex, is a novel vectorcardiography method of measuring the magnitude of electrical forces in the heart. Hypothetically, a greater QRS area denotes higher dyssynchrony and indicates potential benefits from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Previous studies suggest a positive correlation between QRS area and the degree of response to CRT, but its clinical use remains unclear. We performed a meta‐analysis of the relationship between QRS area and survival benefit following CRT.MethodsWe comprehensively searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception to August 2021. We included studies with prospective and retrospective cohort designs that reported QRS area before CRT and total mortality. Data from each study were analyzed using a random‐effects model. The results were reported as a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals.ResultsFive observational studies including 4931 patients were identified. The cut‐off values between large and small QRS areas ranged from 102 to 116 μVs. Our analysis showed a larger QRS area was statistically associated with increased 5‐year survival in patients implanted with CRT (HR pooled 0.48, 95% CI 0.46–0.51, I2 = 54%, p < .0001). Greater QRS area reduction (pre‐ and post‐implantation) were associated with a lower total mortality rate (HR pooled 0.45, 95% CI 0.38–0.52, I2 = 0%, p < .0001).ConclusionLarger pre‐implantation QRS area was associated with increased survival after CRT. QRS area reduction following CRT implantation was also associated with lower mortality. QRS area may potentially become an additional selection criterion for CRT implantations.

AbstractBackgroundIn the modern era, atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation trend has been shifted toward same‐day discharge (SDD), from a traditional overnight stay. Yet, recent studies have not well stated the safety profiles which remained poor‐understood and dispersed. We hence performed systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the adverse outcomes of SDD in comparison with an overnight stay.MethodsDatabases were searched through January 2021. Effect estimates from the individual studies were extracted and combined using random‐effects, generic inverse variance method of der Simonian and Laird. The primary outcomes included total cumulative complications and immediate complications following AF ablation.ResultsTen observational studies were met our inclusion criteria, comprising of total population of 11,660 patients, with SDD 51.3%. For total cumulative complications, there were no differences observed between SDD and overnight stay (5.2% vs. 6.2%: pooled OR 0.77: 95% CI 0.55–1.08, p = .13 with I2 = 27.1%). In addition, comparable immediate complications were also demonstrated (5.2 % vs. 4.3: pooled OR 1.08: 95% CI 0.72–1.62, p = .718, with I2 = 37.3 %).ConclusionOur study suggested that SDD had similar complication rates, both total cumulative and immediate outcomes, compared with overnight stay in selected patients following AF ablation. Nevertheless, randomized control trials are warranted to validate the findings.