Search

Background: The optimal transfusion strategy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-associated anemia remains uncertain., Objectives: To compare all-cause mortality between liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies in patients with AMI-associated anemia, using a meta-analytic approach., Methods: Pubmed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing liberal and restrictive transfusion strategies in AMI-associated anemia. Random-effects meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted to compare blood use, efficacy, and safety endpoints. The p-values were 2-sided with an α of 0.05., Results: In a pooled analysis involving 4,217 participants from three RCTs followed-up for 30 days, no statistically significant differences emerged between restrictive and liberal strategies in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.67-1.57; p=0.90) and other efficacy endpoints (recurrent AMI, unscheduled revascularization, acute heart failure, stroke, and acute kidney injury), as well as in safety endpoints including allergic reactions, infection, and acute lung injury. TSA did not reach futility boundaries. In patients assigned to restrictive strategy, substantial differences in transfusion use were observed across RCTs, correlating with mortality rates, and likely accounting for between-study heterogeneity in treatment effects., Conclusions: In patients with AMI-associated anemia, there is no clear superiority between liberal and restrictive transfusion strategies in all-cause mortality or other major outcomes in 30 days. However, the heterogeneity observed in blood use between the restrictive groups likely explains variable findings across RCTs.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability. It remains uncertain whether ongoing anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who later contract COVID-19 improves clinical outcomes., Objectives: To compare chronic oral anticoagulation with no previous anticoagulation in patients with AF who contracted a COVID-19 infection concerning the outcomes of all-cause mortality, COVID-19 mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and hospitalization., Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for eligible studies from inception to December 2022. We included studies comparing COVID-19 outcomes in patients with versus without prior chronic anticoagulation for AF. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Quality assessment and risk of bias were performed according to Cochrane recommendations., Results: Ten studies comprising 1,177,858 patients with COVID-19 and AF were identified, of whom 893,772 (75.9%) were on prior chronic anticoagulation for AF. In patients with COVID-19, being on chronic anticoagulation for AF significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99; p = 0.048; I2 = 89%) and COVID-19-related mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.79; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) when compared with no prior anticoagulation. In contrast, there was no difference between groups regarding hospitalization (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41; p = 0.587; I2 = 95%) or ICU admission (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; p = 0.216; I2 = 69%)., Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, chronic anticoagulation for patients with AF who contracted COVID-19 was associated with significantly lower rates of all-cause mortality and COVID-19-related mortality as compared with no previous anticoagulation.

Background: Catheter ablation is a well-established therapy for rhythm control in patients who are refractory or intolerant to anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD). Less is known about the efficacy of catheter ablation compared with AAD as a first-line strategy for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF)., Objectives: We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of catheter ablation vs. AAD in patients naïve to prior rhythm control therapies., Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared catheter ablation to AAD for initial rhythm control in symptomatic AF and reported the outcomes of (1) recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs); (2) symptomatic AF; (3) hospitalizations; and (4) symptomatic bradycardia. Heterogeneity was examined with I2statistics. P values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant., Results: We included five trials with 994 patients, of whom 502 (50.5%) underwent catheter ablation. Mean follow-up ranged from one to five years. Recurrences of AT (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.25-0.52; p<0.001) and symptomatic AF (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.18-0.57; p<0.001), and hospitalizations (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.15-0.42; p<0.001) were significantly less frequent in patients treated with catheter ablation compared with AAD. Symptomatic bradycardia was not significantly different between groups (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.18-1.65; p=0.28). Significant pericardial effusions or tamponade occurred in eight of 464 (1.7%) patients in the catheter ablation group., Conclusion: These findings suggest that catheter ablation has superior efficacy to AAD as an initial rhythm control strategy in patients with symptomatic AF.