BackgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is an increasing public health concern. Currently, data regarding the clinical application value of plasma Galectin-3 (Gal-3) in HFpEF are contradictory. Therefore, we performed the following meta-analysis to appraise the clinical implications of serum Gal-3 in HFpEF, including its capacity to predict new-onset disease, long-term unfavorable endpoints, and the degree of cardiac structural abnormality and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were retrieved exhaustively from their inception until November 30, 2021, to obtain studies assessing the correlation between plasma Gal-3 and the clinical features of HFpEF (new-onset HFpEF, adverse outcomes, and echocardiographic parameters related to abnormal cardiac structure and LVDD).ResultsA total of 24 papers containing 27 studies were ultimately included in the present research. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that high plasma Gal-3 levels are strongly associated with the following clinical characteristics of HFpEF: (i) the increased risk of new-onset HFpEF (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.04-1.19; p = 0.910, I2 = 0%; P = 0.002); (ii) the high risk of adverse outcomes of HFpEF patients [all-cause death (HR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.27-1.87; p = 0.138, I2 = 42%; P = 0.000) and the composite events [all-cause death and HF hospitalization (HR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.30-1.74; p = 0.001, I2 = 61%; P = 0.000) or cardiovascular (CV) death and HF hospitalization (HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.51-1.94; p = 0.036, I2 = 58%; P = 0.000)]; (iii) echocardiographic indices [E/e ratio (r: 0.425, 95% CI: 0.184-0.617; p = 0.000, I2 = 93%; P = 0.001) and DT (r: 0.502, 95% CI: 0.061-0.779; p = 0.001 I2 = 91%; P = 0.027)].ConclusionsPlasma Gal-3 might be employed as an additional predictor for new-onset HFpEF, the adverse prognosis in HFpEF patients (all-cause death, the composite endpoints of all-cause death and HF hospitalization or CV death and HF hospitalization), and the severity of LVDD in HFpEF populations.

PurposeThere is increasing evidence that left atrial appendage flow velocity (LAAFV) is linked to the recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after catheter ablation (CA), suggesting the potential predictable significance of LAAFV in this setting. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether LAAFV is association with AF recurrence after CA.MethodsUp to May 1, 2022, six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CINAHL) were searched for literature reporting the association between LAAFV and AF recurrence after CA. All statistical analyses were carried out using STATA version 16 software. Heterogeneity was determined by the Cochrane’s Q test and I2 statistics. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the methodological quality of each included study, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method was adopted to evaluate the quality of evidence.ResultSixteen studies with 5,006 AF patients after CA (1,479 patients with AF recurrence, 3,527 without AF recurrence) were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis of 15 studies (16 data sets) showed that patients with recurrence exhibited lower LAAFV values than those without recurrence [standardized mean difference (SMD): −0.65, 95% CI: −0.88 to −0.42, P < 0.01]. Moreover, we evaluated the association of LAAFV and the risk of AF recurrence after CA. Nine studies (11 data sets) defined LAAFV as continuous variables, and the pooled analysis suggested that for every 1 cm/s rise in LAAFV values, the risk of AF recurrence after CA decreased by 3% [Odds Ratio (OR): 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99, P < 0.01]. Seven studies defined LAAFV as categorical variables, and the pooled analysis showed that lower LAAFV were associated with an increased risk of AF recurrence after CA [OR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.46 to 3.57, P < 0.01]. The subgroup analyses showed that the association between LAAFV and AF recurrence after CA was not significantly affected by the AF type and ablation procedure. The NOS indicated that included studies were moderate to high quality, while the GRADE assessment suggested a low certainty of the evidence.ConclusionLower LAAFV may be associated with an increased risk of AF recurrence after CA. Further studies with well designed and randomized studies for LAAFV should be conducted.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42022333627].

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is a risk factor for cognitive dysfunction. Although catheter ablation (CA) is one of the main treatments for AF, whether it can improve cognitive function in patients with AF remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the cognitive outcome post-CA procedure.MethodsTwo investigators independently searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases from inception to September 2021 for all the potentially eligible studies. The outcomes of interest included dementia or cognitive disorder through scoring or recognized classification criteria. Heterogeneity was determined by using Cochrane's Q test and calculating the I2. A random-effects model was used to incorporate the potential effects of heterogeneity. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the methodological quality of each included study, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method was adopted to evaluate the quality of evidence.ResultThirteen studies including 40,868 patients were included, among which 12,086 patients received AF ablation. Meta-analysis indicated that patients with AF ablation had a lower risk of dementia incidence in comparison to patients with AF without ablation [hazard ratio (HR): 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.84, p = 0.003 I2 = 40%]. Significant differences were observed in the incidence of new-onset dementia [risk ratio (RR): 0.43, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.65, p < 0.0001 I2 = 84%]; the changes in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score [weighted mean difference (WMD): 1.00, 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.64, p < 0.005 I2 = 0%] and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (WMD: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.26, p < 0.00001 I2 = 0%]. However, in subgroup analysis, we did not observe significant changes in MoCA score at < 3 months (WMD: 1.20, 95% CI: −0.19 to 2.58, p = 0.09 I2 = 50%) and changes in cognitive function scores between the radiofrequency group and cryoballoon group [standard mean difference (SMD): 0.39, 95% CI: −0.47 to 1.24, p = 0.38 I2 = 87%]. The NOS indicated that included studies were moderate to high quality, while the quality of evidence assessed by GRADE was low in 2 and very low in 2.ConclusionWe analyzed the related cognitive outcomes after AF ablation. In the overall population, AF ablation had a positive trend for improving cognitive function at >3 months post-procedure. However, AF ablation might not be related to the improvement of cognitive function at < 3 months.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42021285198.

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), an increasing public health concern, is increasing in prevalence and is associated with an elevated risk of hospitalization and mortality. Currently, data on the clinical application value of left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) in HFpEF are contradictory. Therefore, we performed the following meta-analysis to appraise the diagnostic and prognostic value of LV GLS in HFpEF. Methods: PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were retrieved exhaustively from their inception until December 20, 2022, to obtain literature assessing the diagnostic and prognostic value of LV GLS in HFpEF. Results: Forty-one studies (including 14,543 patients) published from 2008 to 2022 were included. The results of the meta-analysis were as follows: First, the LV GLS values in HFpEF patients were significantly lower than in healthy individuals (SMD:1.21; 95% CI (0.94, 1.47), p<0.00001, I²=85%; P<0.00001), but substantially higher than in HErEF patients (SMD: -2.03; 95% CI (-2.23, -1.72), p<0.00001, I²=92%; P<0.00001). Second, the pooled diagnostic parameters of LV GLS for HFpEF were as follows: sensitivity, 0.77 (95% CI: 0.71–0.82); specificity, 0.66 (95% CI: 0.58–0.74); DOR, 7.53 (95% CI: 3.19–17.74); AUC for the SROC, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79–0.87). Finally, the low LV GLS values in HFpEF patients were correlated with a higher risk of all-cause death (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.01-1.25; p=0.000, I2=84%; P=0.031). Conclusions: LV GLS is impaired in HFpEF patients despite a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, indicating the existence of mild LV contractile dysfunction. Moreover, LV GLS might be an auxiliary indicator for diagnosing HFpEF and predicting all-cause death in HFpEF patients.