Search

The current meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in individuals with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The current meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search was conducted to identify all relevant studies related to the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in individuals with diabetes and CKD. The search was undertaken in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to September 2022. The primary efficacy outcome assessed in the current meta-analysis included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Other efficacy outcomes included all-cause mortality and change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (%). Safety outcomes included serious adverse events, acute kidney injury, hypoglycemia, and hyperkalemia. In total 11 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis enrolling 27520 patients (14491 in the SGLT2 inhibitors and 13029 in the placebo group). The findings of this meta-analysis have shown that the risk of MACE and all-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors. Additionally, Hb1AC change was also significantly greater in SGLT2 inhibitors group. In relation to safety outcomes, serious adverse events, risk of acute kidney injury, and hyperkalemia were significantly lower in the SGLT2 inhibitors group. The SGLT2 inhibitors significantly decreased the risk of major cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in patients with CKD and diabetes. Furthermore, SGLT2 inhibitor is also effective in reducing Hb1Ac levels in patients.

Statins can play an essential role in the tertiary and primary prevention of cardiovascular events by reduction of cholesterol in a stroke patient. This meta-analysis aims to assess statin therapy's effect on mortality and recurrence of Intracranial Hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with spontaneous ICH. The current meta-analysis was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to identify studies assessing the use of statins in patients with ICH. The primary outcome assessed in the current meta-analysis was a hemorrhagic stroke. The secondary outcomes included cardiac-related events and all-cause mortality. A total of 9 studies were included in the current meta-analysis enrolling 49027 patients, with 8094 patients on statin therapy and 40933 patients in the control group. The risk of recurrent ICH was significantly lower in patients receiving stains (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67-0.99, p-value: 0.02) compared to placebo. However, no significant differences were observed regarding all-cause mortality (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.53-1.20, p-value: 0.27) and cardiovascular events (RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.88-1.74). In ICH patients, statins can reduce the risk of recurrent ICH in patients with a history of ICH. However, statins had no significant effect on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are the options for revascularization in coronary artery disease (CAD). This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of CABG and PCI for the management of patients with CAD. The meta-analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles. The reference list of included articles was also searched manually for additional publications. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. In total, 12 randomized control trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis encompassing 9,941 patients (4,954 treated with CABG and 4,987 with PCI). The analysis showed that PCI was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-1.45) and revascularization (RR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.82-3.21). However, no significant differences were reported between two arms regarding cardiovascular mortality (RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.96-1.39), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.82-1.67), and stroke (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.35-1.16). CABG was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and revascularization compared to PCI. However, no significant difference was reported in the risk of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke between the two groups.

The role of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in enhancing long-term outcomes remains unknown. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of catheter ablation on stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalization due to heart failure, and major bleeding events in patients with atrial fibrillation. This meta-analysis was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The data search was carried out by two authors independently using online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library. The primary outcome was a stroke. The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and major bleeding events. Total, 10 articles were included in the current meta-analysis encompassing 275392 patients (33291 in the ablation group and 244974 in the non-ablation group). Among all included studies, one study was a randomized control trial, while the remaining other were retrospective cohorts. The current meta-analysis showed that catheter-based AF ablation reduced the risk of stroke (hazard ratio {HR}: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.49-0.77), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.51-0.71), and hospitalization for heart failure (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43-0.76). No significant differences were reported in terms of major bleeding events between patients who received catheter-based AF ablation and patients who did not receive catheter-based AF ablation (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.80-1.14). In the current meta-analysis, catheter-based AF ablation was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, and hospitalization due to heart failure. However, no significant difference was reported in terms of major bleeding events.

Warfarin is the standard of care, and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a group of newer drugs to prevent stroke in patients with valvular heart disease. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs and warfarin in the prevention of stroke in patients with valvular heart disease (VHD). The current meta-analysis was conducted using the standards developed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendation. The databases from the Cochrane library, PubMed, and Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE) were used to search for relevant articles without placing restrictions on the year of publication. Outcomes assessed in the current meta-analysis included a number of patients with stroke or systemic embolism, patients having myocardial infarction during the study period, patients with major bleeding events, and patients who died due to any reason. Overall, five studies were included in the current meta-analysis. Direct oral anticoagulants were associated with a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with VHD (relative risk (RR): 0.75, 95% confidence interval (C)I: 0.60 to 0.94). The risk of major bleeding events is 31% lower in patients receiving DOAC compared to patients receiving warfarin (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.83). No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. The current meta-analysis shows that DOACs were associated with a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism as compared to warfarin in patients with VHD. Besides this, the risk of major bleeding events was also lower in patients receiving DOACs compared to patients receiving warfarin. No significant differences were reported in terms of myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality between the two groups.