Search

BackgroundThe benefit of catheter ablation vs. medical treatment has been reported to be inconsistent in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) due to different enrollment criteria. This meta-analysis aimed to decipher the differential outcomes stratified by different left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs) and AF types.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, ClinicalKey, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for RCTs comparing medical treatment and catheter ablation in patients with AF and HF published before March 31, 2023. Nine studies were included.ResultsWhen patients were stratified by LVEF, improved LVEF and 6-min walk distance, less AF recurrence, and lower all-cause mortality in favor of catheter ablation were observed in patients with LVEF ≤50% but not in patients with LVEF ≤35%, and short HF hospitalization was observed in patients with LVEF ≤50% and LVEF ≤35%. When patients were stratified by AF types, improved LVEF and 6-min walk distance, better HF questionnaire score, and short HF hospitalization in favor of catheter ablation were observed both in patients with nonparoxysmal AF and mixed AF (paroxysmal and persistent) and less AF recurrence and lower all-cause mortality in favor of catheter ablation were observed in only patients with mixed AF.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed improved LVEF and 6-min walk distance, less AF recurrence, and lower all-cause mortality in favor of catheter ablation vs. medical treatment in AF patients with HF and LVEF of 36%–50%. Compared with medical treatment, catheter ablation improved LVEF and had better HF status in patients with nonparoxysmal AF and mixed AF; however, AF recurrence and all-cause mortality in favor of catheter ablation were observed in only HF patients with mixed AF.

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cat-10.1177_10760296231158585 for Comparing Vitamin K Antagonists and Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis by Wei-Chieh Lee, Jhih-Yuan Shih, Hsiu-Yu Fang, Po-Jui Wu, Chih-Yuan Fang, Huang-Chung Chen and Yen-Nan Fang, Wei-Ting Chang, Mien-Cheng Chen in Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-cat-10.1177_10760296231158585 for Comparing Vitamin K Antagonists and Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis by Wei-Chieh Lee, Jhih-Yuan Shih, Hsiu-Yu Fang, Po-Jui Wu, Chih-Yuan Fang, Huang-Chung Chen and Yen-Nan Fang, Wei-Ting Chang, Mien-Cheng Chen in Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis

BackgroundVenoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been increasingly used in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock (CS) or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. It is difficult to perform VA-ECMO weaning, which may cause circulatory failure and death. Levosimendan is an effective inotropic agent used to maintain cardiac output, has a long-lasting effect, and may have the potential benefit for VA-ECMO weaning. The study aimed to explore the relationship between the early use of levosimendan and the rate of VA-ECMO weaning failure in patients on VA-ECMO support for circulatory failure.MethodsAll patients who underwent VA-ECMO in our hospital for CS between January 2017 and December 2020 were recruited in this cohort study and divided into two groups: without and with levosimendan use. Levosimendan was used as an add-on to other inotropic agents as early as possible after VA-ECMO setting. The primary endpoint was VA-ECMO weaning success, which was defined as survival without events for 24 h after VA-ECMO withdrawl. The secondary outcomes were cardiovascular and all-cause mortality at the 30-day and 180-day follow-up periods post-VA-ECMO initialization.ResultsA total of 159 patients were recruited for our study; 113 patients were enrolled in the without levosimendan-use group and 46 patients were enrolled in the levosimendan-use group. In levosimendan-use group, the patients received levosimendan infusion within 24 h after VA-ECMO initialization. Similar hemodynamic parameters were noted between the two groups. Poorer left ventricular ejection fraction and a higher prevalence of intra-aortic balloon pumping were observed in the levosimendan group. An improved weaning rate (without vs. with: 48.7 vs. 82.6%; p < 0.001), lower in-hospital mortality rate (without vs. with: 68.1 vs. 43.5%; p = 0.007), and 180-day cardiovascular mortality (without vs. with: 75.3 vs. 43.2%; p < 0.001) were also noted. Patients administered with levosimendan also presented a lower rate of 30-day (without vs. with: 75.3 vs. 41.3%; p = 0.034) and 180-day (without vs. with: 77.0 vs. 43.2%; p < 0.001) all-cause mortality.ConclusionEarly levosimendan administration may contribute to increasing the success rate of VA-ECMO weaning and may help to decrease CV and all-cause mortality.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 3

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 4

Additional file 1. Supplemental Fig. 1 Comparison of the change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) between 2-year eGFR and baseline eGFR between warfarin and DOAC groups after propensity score matching. In the subgroups analyses, including age ��� 70 (A) or