scholarly journals Anaesthesia use in catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Heart Asia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e011155
Author(s):  
Ka Hou Christien Li ◽  
Tian Sang ◽  
Cheng Chan ◽  
Mengqi Gong ◽  
Yingzhi Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Deep Sedation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Recurrence Risk ◽  
Moderate Sedation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesThis meta-analysis and systematic review seeks to compare both characteristic parameters and procedural outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation in patients under general anaesthesia (GA)/deep sedation and mild/moderate sedation.BackgroundCatheter ablation has become a widely applied intervention for treating symptomatic AF and arrhythmias that are refractory to medical therapy. It can be conducted through from mild sedation to GA.MethodsPubMed and Embase were searched up to July 2018 for randomised controlled trials, cohort and observational studies that assessed the outcomes of catheter ablation under GA/deep sedation or mild/moderate sedation. Nine studies were included in this meta-analysis after screening with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Heterogeneity between studies and publication bias was evaluated by I2 index and Egger’s regression, respectively.ResultsOur meta-analysis found catheter AF ablation with GA/deep sedation to be associated with reduced risk of recurrence (RR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.13, p=0.20) and complications (RR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.42, p=0.82), though statistically insignificant. In terms of procedural parameters, there was no significant difference between the two groups for both procedural time (SMD: −0.13, 95% CI −0.90 to 0.63, p=0.74) and fluoroscopy time (SMD: −0.41, 95% CI −1.40 to 0.58, p=0.41). Univariate meta-regression did not reveal any covariates as a moderating factor for complication and recurrence risk.ConclusionApart from an increased likelihood of procedural success, ablation by GA/deep sedation was found to be non-significantly different from the mild/moderate sedation approach in both procedural parameters and outcome measures.

P2838The impact of anesthesia depth on catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K H Li ◽  
T Sang ◽  
C P Chan ◽  
M Gong ◽  
G Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Deep Sedation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Moderate Sedation ◽  
Complication Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Procedural Success ◽  
Procedural Outcomes

Abstract Objectives This meta-analysis and systematic review seeks to compare both characteristic parameters and procedural outcomes of catheter ablation in patients under GA/deep sedation and mild/moderate sedation. Background Catheter ablation has become a widely applied intervention for treating symptomatic AF and arrhythmias that are refractory to medical therapy. It can be conducted through from mild sedation to general anesthesia. Methods PubMed and Embase were searched up to July 2018 for randomized controlled trials, cohort and observational studies that assessed the outcomes of catheter ablation under GA/deep sedation or mild/moderate sedation. 12 studies were included in this meta-analysis after screening with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Heterogeneity between studies and publication bias was evaluated by I2 index and Egger's regression, respectively. Results Our meta-analysis found catheter AF ablation with GA/deep sedation to be associated with reduced risk of recurrence (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.13, P=0.20) and complications (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.42, P=0.82), though statistically insignificant. In terms of procedural parameters, there was non-significant difference between the two groups when both procedural time (SMD: −0.13, 95% CI: −0.90 to 0.63, P=0.74) and fluoroscopy time (SMD: −0.41, 95% CI: −1.40 to 0.58, P=0.41) were considered. Multivariate meta-regression demonstrated hypertension as an independent moderating factor for complication risk. Complications Comparison Conclusion Apart from an increased likelihood of procedural success, ablation by GA/deep sedation was found to be non-significantly different from the mild/moderate sedation approach in both procedural parameters and outcome measures.

scholarly journals The association of fracture risk in atrial fibrillation patients and long-term anticoagulant therapy category: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e10683
Author(s):  
Jun Chen ◽  
Lingchun Lyu ◽  
Jiayi Shen ◽  
Chunlai Zeng ◽  
Cheng Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Fracture ◽  
Fracture Risk ◽  
Hip Fractures ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Hip Fracture Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective Our study aimed to assess the risk of all fractures and hip fractures in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who took non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to warfarin. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials.gov Website. Reviewed related researches up to January 31, 2020, to identify studies with more than 12 months of follow-up data. The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO Number: CRD42020156893). Results We included five RCT studies, and five observational studies that contained a total of 326,846 patients in our meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that patients taken NOACs had no significant all fracture risk (RR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.81–1.01]) and hip fracture risk (RR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.82–1.03]) compared with those taken warfarin. Subanalysis showed that the risk of all fractures and hip fractures treated by NOACs were significant lower compared with warfarin in observational studies compared with RCT studies. Also, a subanalysis across the duration of anticoagulation showed the NOACs users have lower all fracture risk than warfarin users when the duration of anticoagulation ≤2 years (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.80–0.99]). Further analysis, significant lower all fracture risk in the rivaroxaban therapy (RR = 0.81; 95% CI [0.76–0.86]) compared with warfarin but no statistical significance in hip fracture. There were no significant difference of all fracture risk and hip fracture risk in dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban therapy compared with warfarin. Conclusion The meta-analysis demonstrated that NOACs associated with a significantly lower all fracture risk compared with warfarin when the duration of anticoagulation more than 2 years. Rivaroxaban users had lower risk of all fracture than warfarin users in AF patients. But there was no evidence to verify apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatranin could decrease all fracture and hip fracture risk compared with warfarin.

scholarly journals Non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e038621
Author(s):  
Colin Sue-Chue-Lam ◽  
Matthew Castelo ◽  
Jill Tinmouth ◽  
Diego Llovet ◽  
Teruko Kishibe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Deep Sedation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Critical Dimension ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Moderate Sedation ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThe patient experience is a critical dimension of colonoscopy quality. Sedative and analgesic drugs are commonly used to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy, with predominant regimens being deep sedation, typically achieved with propofol, and moderate sedation, typically achieved with an opioid and a benzodiazepine. However, non-pharmacological interventions exist that may be used to improve patient experience. Furthermore, by identifying non-pharmacological interventions to increase the quality of patient experience under moderate sedation, jurisdictions facing rising use of deep sedation for colonoscopy and its significant associated costs may be better able to encourage patients and clinicians to adopt moderate sedation. Advancing either of these aims requires synthesising the evidence and raising awareness around these non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted that searches multiple electronic databases from inception until 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating what, if any, non-pharmacological interventions are effective compared with placebo or usual care for improving the patient experience of routine colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation. Two reviewers will independently perform a three-stage screening process and extract all study data using piloted forms. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2.0. Where multiple studies evaluate a single intervention, evidence will be quantitatively synthesised using pairwise meta-analysis, otherwise narrative syntheses will be undertaken.Ethics and disseminationThis is a review of existing literature not requiring ethics approval. The review findings will be included in future efforts to develop an implementation strategy to reduce the use of deep sedation for routine colonoscopy. They will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and contribute to a doctoral thesis.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020173906.

Is there Sex-related Outcome Difference According to oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 107,126 Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-203
Author(s):  
Oliver Brown ◽  
Jennifer Rossington ◽  
Gill Louise Buchanan ◽  
Giuseppe Patti ◽  
Angela Hoye
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Death ◽  
P2y12 Inhibitors ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background and Objectives: The majority of patients included in trials of anti-platelet therapy are male. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether, in addition to aspirin, P2Y12 blockade is beneficial in both women and men with acute coronary syndromes. </P><P> Methods: Electronic databases were searched and nine eligible randomised controlled studies were identified that had sex-specific clinical outcomes (n=107,126 patients). Risk Ratios (RR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke (MACE), and a safety endpoint of major bleeding for each sex. Indirect comparison analysis was performed to statistically compare ticagrelor against prasugrel. </P><P> Results: Compared to aspirin alone, clopidogrel reduced MACE in men (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92; p=0.003), but was not statistically significant in women (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02, p=0.08). Clopidogrel therapy significantly increased bleeding in women but not men. Compared to clopidogrel, prasugrel was beneficial in men (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; p=0.02) but not statistically significant in women (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; p=0.30); ticagrelor reduced MACE in both men (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.94; p=0.001) and women (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; p=0.02). Indirect comparison demonstrated no significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in either sex. Compared to clopidogrel, ticagrelor and prasugrel increased bleeding risk in both women and men. </P><P> Conclusion: In summary, in comparison to monotherapy with aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors reduce MACE in women and men. Ticagrelor was shown to be superior to clopidogrel in both sexes. Prasugrel showed a statistically significant benefit only in men; however indirect comparison did not demonstrate superiority of ticagrelor over prasugrel in women.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
O.M Aldaas ◽  
F Lupercio ◽  
C.L Malladi ◽  
P.S Mylavarapu ◽  
D Darden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Preserved Ejection Fraction ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
One Year

Abstract Background Catheter ablation improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the role of catheter ablation in HF patients with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less clear. Purpose To determine the efficacy of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF relative to those with HFrEF. Methods We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared AF recurrence at one year after catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF versus those with HFrEF. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method for dichotomous variables, where a RR&lt;1.0 favors the HFpEF group. Results Four studies with a total of 563 patients were included, of which 312 had HFpEF and 251 had HFrEF. All patients included were undergoing first time catheter ablation of AF. Patients with HFpEF experienced similar recurrence of AF one year after ablation on or off antiarrhythmic drugs compared to those with HFrEF (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.69–1.10, p=0.24), as shown in Figure 1. Recurrence of AF was assessed with electrocardiography, Holter monitoring, and/or event monitoring at scheduled follow-up visits and final follow-up. Conclusion Based on the results of this meta-analysis, catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF appears as efficacious in maintaining sinus rhythm as in those with HFrEF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Abstract 14648: Gender Differences in Procedural Complications Associated With Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 244,353 Patients

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin L Campbell ◽  
John Larson ◽  
Talha Farid ◽  
Stacy Westerman ◽  
Michael S Lloyd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Gender Gap ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vascular Complications ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Procedural Complications

Introduction: Women undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation (AFCA) have higher rates of vascular complications and major bleeding. However, studies have been underpowered to detect differences in rare complications such as stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) and procedural mortality. Methods: We performed a systematic review of databases (PubMed, World of Science, Embase) to identify studies published since 2010 reporting AFCA complications by gender. Six complications of interest were: 1) vascular/groin complications; 2) pericardial effusion/tamponade; 3) stroke/TIA; 4) permanent phrenic nerve injury; 5) major bleeding & 6) procedural mortality. For meta-analysis, random effects models were used when heterogeneity between studies was ≥ 50% (vascular complications, major bleeding) and fixed effects models for other endpoints. Results: Of 5716 citations, 19 studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 244,353 patients undergoing AFCA, of whom 33% were women. Women were older (65.3 ± 11.2 vs. 60.4 ± 13.2 years), more likely hypertensive (60.6 vs. 55.5%) and diabetic (18.3 vs. 16.5%) and had higher CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc scores (3.0 ± 1.8 vs. 1.4 ± 1.4) (p<0.0001 for all comparisons). The rates of all 6 complications were significantly higher in women (Table). However, despite statistically significant differences, the overall incidences of major complications were very low in both genders: stroke/TIA (women 0.51 vs. men 0.39%) and procedural mortality (women 0.25 vs. men 0.18%). Conclusion: Women experience significantly higher rates of AFCA complications. However, the incidence of major procedural complications is very low in both genders. The higher rate of complications in women may be partially attributable to older age and a higher prevalence of comorbidities at the time of ablation. More detailed studies are needed to better define the mechanisms of increased risk in women and to identify strategies for closing the gender gap.

scholarly journals Real-world adherence to oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation patients: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e025102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara L Rodríguez-Bernal ◽  
Aníbal García-Sempere ◽  
Isabel Hurtado ◽  
Yared Santa-Ana ◽  
Salvador Peiró ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Real World ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Medication Possession Ratio ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Study Endpoint ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity

IntroductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the leading causes of cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity. Oral anticoagulants (OACs) have been shown to reduce the incidence of cardioembolic stroke in patients with AF, adherence to treatment being an essential element for their effectiveness. Since the release of the first non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant, several observational studies have been carried out to estimate OAC adherence in the real world using pharmacy claim databases or AF registers. This systematic review aims to describe secondary adherence to OACs, to compare adherence between OACs and to analyse potential biases in OAC secondary adherence studies using databases.Methods and analysisWe searched on PubMed, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases (completed in 26 September 2018) to identify longitudinal observational studies reporting days’ supply adherence measures with OAC in patients with AF from refill databases or AF registers. The main study endpoint will be the percentage of patients exceeding the 80% threshold in proportion of days covered or the medication possession ratio. Two reviewers will independently screen potential studies and will extract data in a structured format. A random-effects meta-analysis will be carried out to pool study estimates. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and we will also assess some study characteristics that could affect days’ supply adherence estimates.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review using published aggregated data does not require ethics approval according to Spanish law and international regulations. The final results will be published in a peer-review journal and different social stakeholders, non-academic audiences and patients will be incorporated into the diffusion activities.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018095646.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document