Search

Abstract Background Pulsed‐field ablation (PFA) has emerged as an innovative alternative to radiofrequency (RF) and cryoablation because it selectively targets myocardial tissue. Thus, we aim to estimate the efficacy and safety of PFA versus thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis were retrieved from PubMed, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL through September 2023. We used RevMan V. 5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). PROSPERO ID: CRD42023480321 Results We included 17 studies with a total of 2255 patients. PFA was significantly associated with a decreased incidence of AF recurrence (RR: 0.66 with 95% CI [0.51, 0.87], p = .003). However, there was no significant difference between PFA and thermal ablation in arrhythmia recurrence (RR: 0.92 with 95% CI [0.74, 1.46], p = .42). PFA was significantly associated with decreased total procedure time (MD: −15.15 with 95% CI [−20.23, −10.07], p

Abstract Guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) has improved outcomes in patients with heart failure, including the use of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors, which can hinder the excretion of potassium, resulting in hyperkalaemia. New potassium binders (NPBs) can prevent this adverse effect; however, the efficacy and safety of NPB for this indication have not been fully established. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane through 26 April 2023. The risk of bias assessment was conducted, following Cochrane's updated Risk of Bias 2 assessment tool. We used the fixed‐effects model to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023426113). We included six RCTs with a total of 1432 patients. NPB was significantly associated with successful mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) optimization [RR: 1.13 with 95% CI (1.02–1.25), P = 0.02], decreased patients with MRA at less than the target dose [RR: 0.72 with 95% CI (0.57–0.90), P = 0.004], and decreased hyperkalaemic episodes [RR: 0.42 with 95% CI (0.24–0.72), P = 0.002]. However, there was no difference between NPB and placebo regarding angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ANRi) optimization [RR: 1.02 with 95% CI (0.89–1.17), P = 0.76] and serum potassium change [MD: −0.31 with 95% CI (−0.61 to 0.00), P = 0.05], with an acceptable safety profile except for the increased incidence of hypokalaemia with NPB [RR: 1.57 with 95% CI (1.12–2.21), P = 0.009]. NPB has been shown to improve GDMT outcomes by enhancing MRA optimization and reducing hyperkalaemic episodes. However, there are limited data on the effects of NPB on ACEi/ARB/ANRi optimization. Future RCTs should investigate ACEi/ARB/ANRi optimization and conduct head‐to‐head comparisons of NPB (patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate).