Background: Current guidelines recommend vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for left ventricular thrombus (LVT) resolution. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly evaluated as alternatives to the standard of care in anticoagulation. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the use of DOACs vs VKAs for LVT treatment. The occurrence of LVT resolution, systemic embolism (SE) or stroke, and bleeding events were compared during follow-up using random-effects analysis. Results: The 5 included studies were all observational (a total of 828 patients). Of these, 284 patients (34%) were treated with DOACs, and 544 (66%) treated with VKAs. Thrombus resolution was similar for both methods (pooled odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.47-1.75; I2 = 63%; P = .78). The incidence of SE or stroke was also similar (pooled OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.85-2.97; I2 = 0%; P = .14). Clinically relevant bleeding incidence was similar for both groups (pooled OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.31-1.40; I2 = 0%; P = .28), although all bleeding events were less frequent in the DOAC group (pooled OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.90; I2 = 0%; P = .02). Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests DOACs were as effective as VKAs for LVT resolution, with a similar risk of systemic embolism/stroke and clinically relevant bleeding. These results, obtained from observational studies, are not definitive and hence randomized controlled trials are needed. Nevertheless, our analysis identifies key experimental features required in future studies.
Mitral regurgitation is the second-most frequent valvular heart disease in Europe and it is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Recognition of MR should encourage the assessment of its etiology, severity, and mechanism in order to determine the best therapeutic approach. Mitral valve surgery constitutes the first-line therapy; however, transcatheter procedures have emerged as an alternative option to treat inoperable and high-risk surgical patients. In patients with suitable anatomy, the transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral leaflet repair is the most frequently applied procedure. In non-reparable patients, transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) has appeared as a promising intervention. Thus, currently TMVR represents a new treatment option for inoperable or high-risk patients with degenerated or failed bioprosthetic valves (valve-in-valve); failed repairs, (valve-in-ring); inoperable or high-risk patients with native mitral valve anatomy, or those with severe annular calcifications, or valve-in-mitral annular calcification. The patient selection requires multimodality imaging pre-procedural planning to select the best approach and device, study the anatomical landing zone and assess the risk of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction. In the present review, we aimed to highlight the main considerations for TMVR planning from an imaging perspective; before, during, and after TMVR.
Aims We performed a meta‐analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) vs transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) for the guidance of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). Methods and Results A comprehensive search of the literature was performed, from inception to December 2018 using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar electronic databases, and references from articles. Publications comparing ICE and TOE for the guidance of percutaneous LAAO were included in the analysis. The co‐primary endpoints were procedural success and procedure‐related complications. Secondary endpoints included procedural and fluoroscopy times and the volume of contrast media used. Five studies were included in the analysis, providing a total of 1122 patients. Procedural success was similar with both techniques (pooled odd ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–2.75, P = 0.24, I2 = 0%), with a trend for less procedure‐related complications in the ICE group (pooled OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31–1.05, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). Neither procedural (mean difference −1.64 minutes, 95% CI −16.42 to 13.14, P = 0.83, I2 = 96%) nor fluoroscopy times (mean difference + 1.29 minutes, 95% CI −1.38 to 3.97, P = 0.34, I2 = 76%) varied significantly between groups. There was a reduction in the volume of contrast media used in the ICE group (mean difference −9.71 mL, 95% CI −14.61 to −4.81, P > 0.01, I2 = 0%). Conclusion Intracardiac echocardiography is a safe and effective alternative to TOE for guidance of percutaneous LAAO.
Purpose: Since the widespread availability of contact-force sensing catheters, the need for a waiting period after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has not been reassessed.We aim to evaluate whether a waiting period is still necessary after PVI guided by the ablation Index (AI).Methods: Prospective, multicenter, randomized study of consecutive patients referred for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation from May 2019 to February 2020. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to PVI with versus without a waiting period of 20 min. Acute pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection after adenosine challenge was the primary endpoint. A per-protocol analysis was designed to determine whether a strategy of dismissing the waiting period after PVI was noninferior to waiting for 20 min for identifying acute PV reconnection. PVI was guided by tailored AI values and an interlesion distance ≤6 mm.Results: During the enrollment period, 167 patients (56% males, mean age of 57 ± 14 years) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria -84 patients (308 PV) in the waiting period group (Group A) and 83 patients (314 PV) in the group without a waiting period (Group B). Acute PV reconnection was identified in 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7%-5.9%) of PVs in the study group B compared to 2.9% (95% CI, 1.0%-4.8%) of PVs in the Group A (p = .002 for non-inferiority). At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in arrhythmia recurrence between groups (9.5% in Group A vs. 9.6% in Group B, hazard ratio: 1.03 [95% CI, 0.39-2.73], p = .98). Conclusion:In paroxysmal AF patients submitted to ablation, a tailored PVI guided by the AI rendered a 20-min waiting period unnecessary.
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.