Abstract 20116: The Impact of Atrial Fibrillation Type on the Risk of Thromboembolism, Mortality and Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anand Ganesan ◽  
Derek Chew ◽  
Trent Hartshorne ◽  
Joseph B Selvanayagam ◽  
Philip Aylward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Risk Models ◽  
Thromboembolic Risk ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: Thromboembolic risk stratification schemes and clinical guidelines for atrial fibrillation regard risk as independent of classification into paroxysmal (PAF) and nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (NPAF). The aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the impact of AF type on thromboembolism, bleeding and mortality. Hypothesis: AF type would predict rates of thromebolism, mortality and bleeding. Methods: Pubmed was searched for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting prospectively collected clinical outcomes stratified by AF type. The incidence of thromboembolism, mortality and bleeding was extracted. Results: AF clinical outcome data was extracted from 12 studies containing 99,996 patients. The pooled unadjusted risk ratio (RR) for thromboembolism in NPAF vs. PAF was RR 1.339 (95% CI: 1.140-1.644, P<0.001). In studies providing estimates of thromboembolism risk adjusted for baseline clinical risk factors, the pooled adjusted hazard ratio (HR) in NPAF vs. PAF was HR 1.384 (95% CI, 1.191-1.608, P<0.001). The pooled unadjusted risk ratio for all-cause mortality in NPAF vs. PAF was RR 1.462 (95% CI: 1.255-1.703 P<0.001). The pooled adjusted HR for all-cause mortality in NPAF vs. PAF was HR 1.217 (95% CI: 1.085-1.365, P<0.001. Rates of bleeding in NPAF and PAF were similar, unadjusted RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.919-1.087, P=0.994), pooled adjusted HR 1.025 (95% CI: 0.898-1.170, P=0.715). Conclusions: These data suggest a need for re-evaluation of the paradigm of thromboembolic risk equivalence between PAF and NPAF, and emphasize AF type as a powerful predictor of AF-related morbidity and mortality. Future studies exploring integration of AF type into thromboembolic risk models are needed.

scholarly journals Prevalence and Impact of Atrial Fibrillation in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 2490
Author(s):  
Giulio Francesco Romiti ◽  
Bernadette Corica ◽  
Gregory Y. H. Lip ◽  
Marco Proietti
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Geographical Location ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Cardiovascular Complications ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Degree Of Heterogeneity

Background: In patients with COVID-19, cardiovascular complications are common and associated with poor prognosis. Among these, an association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and COVID-19 has been described; however, the extent of this relationship is unclear. The aim of this study is to investigate the epidemiology of AF in COVID-19 patients and its impact on all-cause mortality. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed and reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and a protocol for this study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021227950). PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched for relevant studies. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Overall, 31 studies were included in the analysis, with a total number of 187,716 COVID-19 patients. The prevalence of AF was found to be as high as 8% of patients with COVID-19 (95% CI: 6.3–10.2%, 95% prediction intervals (PI): 2.0–27.1%), with a high degree of heterogeneity between studies; a multiple meta-regression model including geographical location, age, hypertension, and diabetes showed that these factors accounted for more than a third of the heterogeneity. AF COVID-19 patients were less likely to be female but more likely older, hypertensive, and with a critical status than those without AF. Patients with AF showed a significant increase in the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 3.97, 95% CI: 2.76–5.71), with a high degree of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis focusing on new-onset AF showed the consistency of these results. Conclusions: Among COVID-19 patients, AF is found in 8% of patients. AF COVID-19 patients are older, more hypertensive, and more likely to have a critical status. In COVID-19 patients, AF is associated with a 4-fold higher risk of death. Further studies are needed to define the best treatment strategies to improve the prognosis of AF COVID-19 patients.

"Effectiveness of Robotics Intervention in Education for Children and Healthcare of Elderly People: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol" (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramesh Athe ◽  
Vidushi Varma ◽  
Shivendra Pandey ◽  
Ayush Gupta ◽  
Sravanthi Chaitanya
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Elder Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Educational Institution ◽  
Humanoid Robots ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Population Characteristics ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Test Procedures ◽  
The Impact

UNSTRUCTURED A systematic review will be carried out to examine the use of robots in early childhood and lower-level education, elder care, and learning/teaching in an educational institution(s). Present study to critically review the currently available evidence of studies carried out and look at the impact of humanoid robots on children, elder care, and education. Four major factors will be considered – the type of studies carried on the influence of robots on children’s behavior and growth, elder care, the understanding of stakeholders (parents, children, and educators) on educational robots, and finally, the reactions of the children and elderly population on robot design or presence. This review will reveal the validating of their use of robots including experimental and non-experimental trials. The steps in this process will be conducted according to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidelines for meta-analysis. A comprehensive review of the literature search from Medline, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest, and secondary references will be performed from inception to April 15, 2021. Analyses will be done to calculate summary estimates on awareness indicators and test procedures by using fixed/random-effects models. Meta-regression and covariate analyses will be performed to explore the influence of confounders on the net pooled effect. Titles and abstracts will be assessed by three independent reviewers for potential relevance. Using study-specific data forms, predetermined data will be extracted for each study. Data extracted will include: 1) study characteristics, 2) study design, 3) population characteristics, 4) details of the comparison group(s), 5) awareness indicators, 6) skills development, 7) progressive, 8) outcome data, and 9) Study year. Other classifications to be considered are a type of skill and specific age.

Abstract 309: Is Right Bundle Branch Block Associated with Poor Outcomes in the Setting of an Acute Coronary Syndrome? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Hazem ◽  
Sunita Sharma ◽  
Amit Sharma ◽  
Cameron Leitch ◽  
Roopalakshmi Sharadanant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Right Bundle Branch Block ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Forest Plot ◽  
Bundle Branch Block ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Importance: Up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have right bundle branch block (RBBB), and RBBB has been associated with a higher risk of mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB for patients with AMI. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) Data Sources: We have systematically searched Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science through January 2014. Study Selection: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts, selecting studies that described all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death in patients with RBBB and suspected ACS. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcomes. Knowledge synthesis: We pooled risk ratio with hazard ratio in studies reporting those outcomes. When reported, odds ratio was converted into risk ratio using reported event rate in each study’s unexposed -read: non RBBB- group. Main Outcomes: All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (death). Results: Eighteen studies were found that reported eligible data. All were observational studies, involving over 89,000 patients. In short-term follow up (up to 30 days), RBBB on presentation was associated with higher all-cause mortality rate, compared to patients without RBBB (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.76-2.82). There was a trend for higher mortality at long-term follow up (range: 6 months-16 years) that did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.93-2.25). Figure-1 demonstrates the forest plot. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and majority of included studied were deemed moderate to high quality. Conclusion and Relevance: RBBB is associated with a more than 2-fold higher risk of all-cause mortality in patients with AMI at 30 days follow up. Patients with AMI and RBBB represent a high risk group for adverse outcomes. A sentence on the differential findings for new vs. old RBBB and association with outcomes could follow here.

Abstract 15090: Direct Oral Anticoagulation vs Vitamin K Antagonist in Atrial Fibrillation With Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud El Iskandarani ◽  
Islam Shatla ◽  
Muhammad Khalid ◽  
Bara El Kurdi ◽  
Timir Paul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Liver Disease ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Background: Current guidelines recommend against the use of direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the setting of significant liver disease (LD) due to lack of evidence in safety and efficacy studies. However, recently studies have investigated the role of DOAC in comparison to Vitamin K antagonist (VKA) in this category of patients. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this approach. Hypothesis: DOAC is safe and effective compared to VKA in AF with LD patients. Method: Unrestricted search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases performed from inception until June 1, 2020 for studies comparing DOAC with VKA including more than 100 AF patients with LD. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed using Revman 5.3 software. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% Confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model. Result: A total of 5 studies (3 retrospective and 2 post hoc analysis) were included examining 39,064 patients with AF and LD (25,398 DOAC vs 13,669 VKA). DOAC is associated with lower risk of major bleeding compared to VKA with a HR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.47-0.98; I 2 =53%), all-cause mortality (HR 0.74;95% CI 0.59-0.94; I 2 =61%), and intracranial bleeding (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.40-0.58; I 2 =0). There was no significant difference in ischemic stroke risk (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47-1.14; I 2 =72%) and gastrointestinal bleeding risk (0.96; 95% CI 0.61-1.51; I 2 =41%) between DOAC and VKA. Conclusion: DOAC is non-inferior to VKA regarding ischemic stroke prevention in AF patients with LD. Moreover, DOAC is associated with a lower risk of major bleeding, intracranial bleeding and all-cause mortality. Further randomized trials are needed to validate our findings.

Statins and Major Adverse Limb Events in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 120 (05) ◽  
pp. 866-875 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniele Pastori ◽  
Alessio Farcomeni ◽  
Alberto Milanese ◽  
Francesco Del Sole ◽  
Danilo Menichelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Peripheral Artery Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Graft Occlusion ◽  
Peripheral Artery ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Statin Prescription ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Statins are guidelines recommended in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) for the prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events. Comprehensive meta-data on the impact of statins on major adverse limb events (MALE) in PAD patients are lacking. We examined the association of statin use with MALE in patients with PAD. Methods We performed a systematic review (registered at PROSPERO: number CRD42019137111) and metanalysis of studies retrieved from PubMed (via MEDLINE) and Cochrane (CENTRAL) databases addressing the impact of statin on MALE including amputation and graft occlusion/revascularization. Secondary endpoints were all-cause death, composite CV endpoints, CV death, and stroke. Results We included 51 studies with 138,060 PAD patients, of whom 48,459 (35.1%) were treated with statins. The analysis included 2 randomized controlled trials, 20 prospective, and 29 retrospective studies. Overall, 11,396 MALE events, 21,624 deaths, 4,852 composite CV endpoints, 4,609 CV deaths, and 860 strokes were used for the analysis. Statins reduced MALE incidence by 30% (pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 0.702; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.605–0.815) and amputations by 35% (HR: 0.654; 95% CI: 0.522–0.819), all-cause mortality by 39% (pooled HR: 0.608, 95% CI: 0.543–0.680), CV death by 41% (HR: 0.594; 95% CI: 0.455–0.777), composite CV endpoints by 34% (pooled HR: 0.662; 95% CI: 0.591–0.741) and ischemic stroke by 28% (pooled HR: 0.718; 95% CI: 0.620–0.831). Conclusion Statins reduce the incidence of MALE, all-cause, and CV mortality in patients with PAD. In PAD, a high proportion of MALE events and deaths could be prevented by implementing a statin prescription in this patient population.

scholarly journals Gender-Related Differences in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pulse ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 38-46
Author(s):  
Angkawipa Trongtorsak ◽  
Natchaya Polpichai ◽  
Sittinun Thangjui ◽  
Jakrin Kewcharoen ◽  
Ratdanai Yodsuwan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Phenotypic Expression ◽  
Female Gender ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Related Mortality

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Gender-related differences in phenotypic expression and outcomes have been established in many cardiac conditions; however, the impact of gender in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the differences in clinical outcomes between female and male HCM patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to October 2020. Included were cohort studies that compared outcomes of interest including all-cause mortality, HCM-related mortality, and worsening heart failure (HF) or HF hospitalization between male and female. Data from each study were combined using the random effects model to calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Eleven retrospective cohort studies with a total of 9,427 patients (3,719 females) were included. Female gender was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (pooled OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.26–2.10, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001), HCM-related mortality (pooled OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.08–2.01, <i>p</i> = 0.015), and worsening HF or HF hospitalization (pooled OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.76–2.39, <i>p</i> ≤ 0.001). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Female gender was associated with a worse prognosis in HCM. These findings suggest the need for improved care in women including early identification of disease and more possible aggressive management. Moreover, gender-based strategy may benefit in HCM patients.

scholarly journals Efficacy and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Piscoya ◽  
Luis Fernando Ng-Sueng ◽  
Angela Parra del Riego ◽  
Renato Cerna-Viacava ◽  
Vinay Pasupuleti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractBackgroundWe evaluated the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.MethodsSystematic review in five engines, pre-print webpages and RCT registries until May 22, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating remdesivir on confirmed, COVID-19 adults with pneumonia and/or respiratory insufficiency. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAE). Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, progression of pneumonia, and adverse events (AE). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed.ResultsTwo placebo-controlled RCTs (n=1300) and two case series (n=88) were included. All studies used remdesivir 200mg IV the first day and 100mg IV for 9 more days, and followed up until 28 days. Wang et al. RCT was stopped early due to AEs; ACTT-1 was preliminary reported at 15-day follow up. Time to clinical improvement was not decreased in Wang et al. RCT, but median time to recovery was decreased by 4 days in ACTT-1. Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28) and need for invasive ventilation at 14 days (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42), but had fewer SAEs (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.63 to 0.94). AEs were similar between remdesivir and placebo arms. Risk of bias ranged from some concerns to high risk in RCTs.InterpretationThere is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in adult, hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Remdesivir should not be recommended for the treatment of severe COVID-19.

scholarly journals Catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic medication in atrial fibrillation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Manheimer ◽  
Martin Mayer ◽  
Brian S Alper
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Mortality Outcome ◽  
Antiarrhythmic Medication ◽  
Meta Analyses

The CABANA and CAPTAF trials report more data on the effects of catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic medication on quality of life for patients with atrial fibrillation than previously available systematic reviews. However, these publications do not report data for all-cause mortality and cardiac hospitalization in a form that can be integrated into recent meta-analyses. Recent meta-analysis estimates for the effect of catheter ablation on all-cause mortality suggest a reduction in patients with comorbid heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (risk ratio [RR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81, n=732, 5 trials) and an unclear effect in patients without comorbid HFrEF (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.61, n=710, 4 trials). CABANA (n = 2,204) reported mortality for all patients combined (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.15), and subgroup analyses by presence or absence of HFrEF would be useful to determine consistency with other trials and, if consistent, increase precision of pooled effect estimates. CAPTAF (n = 155) (which included almost exclusively patients without comorbid heart failure) did not report the mortality outcome data. Both trials collected data on cardiac hospitalization. A recent meta-analysis suggests a reduction in cardiac hospitalization in patients with comorbid HFrEF (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.87, n=632, 3 trials) and in patients without comorbid HFrEF (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.45, n=629, 4 trials). Again, however, the CABANA and CAPTAF trials did not report these data in a way that would allow them to be integrated into existing meta-analyses or did not report these data at all. Reporting key clinical outcomes from these trials with subgrouping by comorbid HFrEF could provide substantially more data than the prior body of evidence and inform best current estimates for this comparison.

scholarly journals Rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S.Z Ramos ◽  
A.L.D Te-Rosano
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Control Strategy ◽  
Rate Control ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rhythm Control ◽  
Forest Plot ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia that can promote or worsen heart failure (HF). Limited data exist to guide treatment for patients with AF with HF regarding rate versus rhythm control. Purpose To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) in the determination of the efficacy of rhythm control as compared to rate control among patients with AF and HF. Methods Extensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, EMBASE, Google scholar, and Medline was done up to October 2020. Studies were limited to RCTs comparing rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with rate control. Outcome measures include all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Statistical analysis was done using Review manager V5.3. Results A total of 9800 patients were included in the pooled analysis of the comparison of rhythm control versus rate control strategy in patients with AF and HF. All pooled analyses were done using random effects model. The pooled risk ratio for all-cause mortality of rate control vs rhythm control did not achieve significance at 1.15, with 95% CI 0.91 to 1.45, and p=0.24. There was statistically significant heterogeneity across the two studies with I2 of 54% and p=0.02 (Figure 1A). The pooled risk ratio for cardiovascular mortality in rate control strategy vs rhythm control is 1.19, with 95% CI 0.94 to 1.50, and p=0.15 (Figure 1B). Eight trials with 9987 participants reported stroke. The pooled risk ratio of stroke in rate control vs rhythm control is 1.11, with 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46, and p=0.47 (Figure 1C). The 95% CI for the pooled risk ratio cross 1.00, indicating an equivocal result. Our results do not indicate statistical heterogeneity across the studies with I2 of 28% and p=0.27. Seven trials with 8311 participants reported bleeding. The pooled risk ratio of hospitalization for bleeding in rate control vs rhythm control is 1.18, with 95% CI 0.81 to 1.73, and p=0.39 (Figure 1D). Thus, we have insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether rate or rhythm control have significantly higher or lower risk for bleeding. Four trials with 8468 participants reported hospitalization rate. The pooled risk ratio of hospitalization in rate control compared to rhythm control is 0.96, with 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07, and p=0.42 (Figure 1E). None of the studies individually showed statistically significant differences but AF–CHF showed benefit of rate control in the first year after enrolment (p=0.001) and a tendency favouring rate control (p=0.06) when the study was analysed in full length except for AF-CHF. Conclusion Among patients with AF and concomitant HF, there is no sufficient evidence between rate and rhythm control strategies in their effects to rates of mortality and major clinical outcomes; therefore, choosing an appropriate therapeutic strategy should consider individual variations such as patient preferences, comorbidities, and treatment cost. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Forest Plot A–C Forest Plot D–E

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document