Background Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) using the high‐power short duration (HPSD) results in better ablation lesion formation in the swine model. This systematic review and meta‐analysis purposed to investigate the safety and efficacy profile between HPSD and low‐power long‐duration (LPLD) ablation strategies to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Methods We completed the literature review after identifying the relevant articles comparing HPSD and LPLD ablation methods for AF recorded in ClinicalTrials.com, CENTRAL, PubMed, and ScienceDirect until February 2021. The overall effects were calculated using pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) for categorical and continuous data, respectively. We also estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results The HPSD strategy took shorter procedure time (MD = −33.75 min; 95% CI = −44.54 to −22.97; P < .01), fluoroscopy time (MD = −5.73 min; 95% CI = −8.77 to −2.70; P < .001), and ablation time (MD = −17.71; 95% CI = −21.02 to −14.41) than LPLD strategy. The HPSD RFCA was correlated with lower risk of esophageal thermal injury (RR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.94; P = .02). The HPSD method resulted in higher first‐pass pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) (RR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.64; P < .01), lower PV reconnection (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.64; P < .01), and lower recurrent AF (RR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.96; P = .02) than LPLD strategy. Conclusion HPSD RFCA was superior to the conventional LPLD RFCA in terms of safety and efficacy in treating AF patients.
Background Non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) has a complex pathophysiological process. The standard catheter ablation approach is pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). The additional value of complex fractionated electrogram (CFAE) ablation is still unclear. We aimed to investigate the additional value of CFAE ablation for non-paroxysmal AF. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies up to May 2020. Articles comparing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus CFAE ablation and PVI alone for AF were obtained from the electronic scientific databases. The pooled mean difference (MD) and pooled risk ratio (RR) were assessed. Results A total of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 1034 patients were involved. Following a single catheter ablation procedure, the presence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) with or without the use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) between both groups were not significantly different (RR = 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.97–1.24; p = 0.13). Similar results were also obtained for the presence of any ATA without the use of AADs (RR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.96–1.22; p = 0.2). The additional CFAE ablation took longer procedure times (MD = 46.95 min; 95% CI = 38.27–55.63; p = < 0.01) and fluoroscopy times (MD = 11.69 min; 95% CI = 8.54–14.83; p = < 0.01). Conclusion Additional CFAE ablation failed to improve the outcomes of non-paroxysmal AF patients. It also requires a longer duration of procedure times and fluoroscopy times.
Background: The advantage of prophylactic cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation for AF patients without documented atrial flutter is still unclear. The present study aimed to evaluate the role of prophylactic CTI ablation in this population. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis study was conducted. The overall effects estimation was conducted using random effects models. The pooled effects were presented as the risk difference and standardised mean difference for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 1,476 patients from four studies were included. The risk of atrial tachyarrhythmias following a successful catheter ablation procedure was greater in the pulmonary vein isolation + CTI ablation group than pulmonary vein isolation alone group (34.8% versus 28.2%; risk difference 0.08; 95% CI [0.00–0.17]; p=0.04). Prophylactic CTI ablation was associated with a higher recurrent AF rate (33.8% versus 27.1%; risk difference 0.07; 95% CI [0.01–0.13]; p=0.02). Additional prophylactic CTI ablation to pulmonary vein isolation significantly increased the radio frequency application time (standardised mean difference 0.52; 95% CI [0.04–1.01]; p=0.03). Conclusion: This study suggested that prophylactic CTI ablation was an ineffective and inefficient approach in AF without documented typical atrial flutter patients.
Background To overcome the several drawbacks of warfarin, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were developed. Even though randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provided high-quality evidence, the real-world evidence is still needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis proposed to measure the safety and efficacy profile between warfarin and NOACs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in preventing stroke. Results We collected articles about the real-world studies comparing warfarin and NOACs for NVAF patients recorded in electronic scientific databases such as Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, and Cochrane. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the generic inverse variance method. A total of 34 real-world studies, including 2287288 NVAF patients, were involved in this study. NOACs effectively reduced the stroke risk than warfarin (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; p < 0.01). Moreover, NOACs effectively lowered all-cause mortality risk (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.81; p < 0.01). From the safety aspect, compared to warfarin, NOACs significantly reduced major bleeding risk (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86; p < 0.01) and intracranial bleeding risk (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70; p < 0.01). However, NOACs administration failed to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding risk (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06; p = 0.12). Conclusions In NVAF patients, NOACs were found to be more effective than warfarin at reducing stroke risk. NOACSs also lowered the risk of all-cause mortality, cerebral hemorrhage, and severe bleeding in NVAF patients compared to warfarin.
Background: Data on the optimal therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) for non-valvular and valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in Indonesia is currently unavailable. Therefore, we designed the Indonesian Registry on Atrial Fibrillation (OneAF) registry in order to seek a safe and beneficial range of INR in Indonesian patients with non-valvular and valvular AF. Methods/design: The OneAF registry is a nationwide collaboration of the Indonesian Heart Rhythm Society (InaHRS) enrolling all hospitals with cardiac electrophysiologists in Indonesia. It is a prospective, multicentre, nationwide, observational study aiming to recruit non-valvular and valvular AF patients in Indonesia. The registry was started in January 2020 with a planned 2 years of recruitment. There are 2 respondents for this registry: non-cohort and cohort respondents. Non-cohort registry respondents are AF patients at hospitals who fulfill inclusion and exclusion criteria but did not consent for a 24 month follow up. Whereas patients who consented for a 24 month follow up were included as cohort registry respondents. Key data collected includes basic sociodemographic information, symptoms and signs, medical history, results of physical examination and laboratory test, details of diagnostics and treatment measures and events. Results: Currently, a total of 1568 respondents have been enrolled in the non-cohort registry, including 1065 respondents with non-valvular AF (67.8%) and 503 respondents with valvular AF (32.2%). We believe that the OneAF registry will provide insight into the regional variability of anticoagulant treatment for AF, the implementation of rhythm/rate control approaches, and the clinical outcomes concerning cardiocerebrovascular events. Trial registration: Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04222868).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.