Meta-Analysis of Trials on Prophylactic Use of Levosimendan in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

Screening for atrial fibrillation in the elderly: A network meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the optimal screening strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF) have yielded conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the comparative efficacy of different AF screening strategies in older adults.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane without language restrictions through January 2022, for RCTs evaluating the outcomes of non-invasive AF screening approaches among adults ≥65 years. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis comparing any AF screening approach versus no screening, and a network meta-analysis comparing systematic screening versus opportunistic screening versus no screening. The primary outcome was new AF detection.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 9 RCTs with 85,209 patients. The weighted median follow-up was 12 months. The mean age was 73.4 years and men represented 45.6%. On pairwise meta-analysis, any AF screening (either systematic or opportunistic) was associated with higher AF detection (1.8% vs. 1.3%; risk ratio [RR] 2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-3.65) and initiation of oral anticoagulation (RR 3.26; 95%CI 1.15-9.23), compared with no screening. There was no significant difference between any AF screening versus no screening in all-cause mortality (RR 0.97; 95%CI 0.93-1.01) or acute cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.84-1.01). On network meta-analysis, only systematic screening was associated with higher AF detection (RR 2.73; 95% CI 1.62-4.59) and initiation of oral anticoagulation (RR 5.67; 95% CI 2.68-11.99), but not with the opportunistic screening, compared with no screening.

CONCLUSION

Systematic AF screening using non-invasive tools was associated with higher rate of new AF detection and initiation of OAC, but opportunistic screening was not associated with higher detection rates. There were no significant differences between the various AF screening approaches with respect to rates of all-cause mortality or CVA events. However, these analyses are likely underpowered and future RCTs are needed to examine the impact of systematic AF screening on mortality and CVA outcomes.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Levosimendan: mechanistic insight and its diverse future aspects in cardiac care

Inotropic agents are generally recommended to use in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) concurrent to end-organ dysfunction. However, due to certain pharmacological limitations like developing life threatening arrhythmia and tolerance, cannot be employed as much as needed. Meanwhile, Calcium ion (Ca²⁺) sensitisers exhibits their inotropic action by increasing the sensitivity of the cardiomyocyte to intracellular Ca²⁺ ion and have been reported as emerging therapeutic alternative in HF cases. Levosimendan (LEVO) is an inodilator and with its unique pharmacology justifying its use in a wide range of cardiac alterations in HF particularly in undergoing cardiac surgery. It is also reported to be better than classical inotropes in maintaining cardiac mechanical efficacy and reducing congestion in acute HF with hypotension. This review paper was designed to compile various evidence about basic pharmacology and potential clinical aspects of LEVO in cardiac surgery and other HF associated alterations. This will benefit directly to the researcher in initiating research and to fill the gaps in the area of thrust.

Fractional flow reserve versus angiography alone in guiding myocardial revascularisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

Randomised trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation among patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) have yielded mixed results.

AIMS

To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation among patients with obstructive CAD.

METHODS

An electronic search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases without language restrictions was performed through November 2021 for randomised controlled trials that evaluated the outcomes of FFR-guided versus angiography-guided revascularisation. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The final analysis included seven trials with 5094 patients. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 38 months. Compared with angiography guidance, FFR guidance was associated with fewer number of stents during revascularisation (standardised mean difference=-0.80; 95% CI -1.33 to -0.27), but no difference in total hospital cost. There was no difference between FFR-guided and angiography-guided revascularisation in long-term MACE (13.6% vs 13.9%; risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11). Meta-regression analyses did not reveal any evidence of effect modification for MACE with acute coronary syndrome (p=0.36), proportion of three-vessel disease (p=0.88) or left main disease (p=0.50). There were no differences between FFR-guided and angiography-guided revascularisation in the outcomes all-cause mortality (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.68), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.26), repeat revascularisation (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21), recurrent myocardial infarction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14) or stent thrombosis (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.21).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with obstructive CAD, FFR-guided revascularisation did not reduce the risk of long-term adverse cardiac events or the individual outcomes. However, FFR-guided revascularisation was associated with fewer number of stents.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021291596.

FFR- Versus Angiography-Guided Revascularization for Nonculprit Stenosis in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided versus angiography-guided approaches for nonculprit stenosis among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel disease.

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy to guide revascularization of nonculprit stenosis among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease remains uncertain.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials evaluating the outcomes of culprit-only revascularization, angiography-guided complete revascularization (CR), or FFR-guided CR. A pairwise meta-analysis comparing CR versus culprit-only revascularization and a network meta-analysis comparing the different revascularization techniques were conducted. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

RESULTS

The analysis included 11 trials with 8,195 patients. CR (ie, angiography-guided or FFR-guided CR) was associated with a lower incidence of MACE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.59), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.98), recurrent myocardial infarction (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.95), and repeat ischemia-driven revascularization (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.35). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the incidence of MACE was lower with both angiography-guided CR (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.58) and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.78) compared with a culprit-only approach, while there was no difference in risk for MACE between angiography-guided and FFR-guided CR (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, CR, with angiographic or FFR guidance for nonculprit stenosis, was associated with lower incidence of adverse events compared with culprit-only revascularization. FFR-guided CR was not superior to angiography-guided CR in reducing the incidence of adverse events. Future studies investigating other tools to risk-stratify nonculprit stenoses are encouraged.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Outcomes With Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Techniques

There have been mixed results regarding the efficacy and safety of various percutaneous coronary intervention bifurcation techniques. An electronic search of Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed for randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of any bifurcation techniques. We conducted a pairwise meta-analysis comparing the 1-stent versus 2-stent bifurcation approach, and a network meta-analysis comparing the different bifurcation techniques. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The analysis included 22 randomized trials with 6,359 patients. At a weighted follow-up of 25.9 months, there was no difference in MACE between 1-stent versus 2-stent approaches (risk ratio [RR] 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 1.56). Exploratory analysis suggested a higher risk of MACE with a 1-stent approach in studies using second-generation drug-eluting stents, if side branch lesion length ≥10 mm, and when final kissing balloon was used. There was no difference between 1-stent versus 2-stent approaches in all-cause mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.30), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.68), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.65), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.56) or stent thrombosis (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.78). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that double kissing crush technique was associated with lower MACE, MI, TVR, and target lesion revascularization, whereas culotte technique was associated with higher rates of stent thrombosis. In this meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found no difference between 1-stent versus 2-stent bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention approaches in the risk of MACE during long-term follow-up. Among the various bifurcation techniques, double kissing crush technique was associated with lower rates of MACE, target lesion revascularization, TVR, and MI.

Preoperative, Multidisciplinary Clinical Optimization of Patients with Severely Depressed Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Who Are Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains a routine operation despite major advancements in angioplastic procedures. Around 200,000 CABG procedures are performed annually in the U.S. Patients who are not candidates for angioplasty intervention often have advanced coronary disease and comorbidities that raise the risk of heart failure with decreased ejection fraction to around 25%. Over the years, significant developments in various preoperative interventions have occurred; in this paper, we suggest a multidisciplinary preoperative algorithm that can be included in a regularly scheduled multidisciplinary care plan.

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants vs. low molecular weight heparin for cancer-related venous thromboembolism: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIMS

To examine the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE).

METHODS AND RESULTS

An electronic search of the MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases without language restrictions was performed through April 2020 for randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes with DOACs vs. LMWH among patients with cancer-related VTE. Summary estimates were reported using random effects model. The main efficacy outcome was VTE recurrence, while the main safety outcome was major bleeding . The final analysis included four randomized trials with a total of 2907 patients. The weighted mean follow-up was 6.1 months. Compared with LMWH, DOACs were associated with lower incidence of VTE recurrence [5.7% vs. 9.1%, risk ratio (RR) 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.87; P = 0.01], driven by lower incidence of deep venous thrombosis (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39-0.93; P = 0.02). There was no difference in the incidence of major bleeding between DOACs and LMWH (4.8% vs. 3.6%, RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.84-2.11; P = 0.23). The incidence of all-cause mortality was similar (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.84-1.16; P = 0.91). Subgroup analysis suggested no differences according to the type of DOAC regarding recurrent VTE or major bleeding (Pinteraction = 0.53 and Pinteraction = 0.11, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with cancer-related VTE, DOACs were associated with lower incidence of VTE recurrence and no difference in the incidence of major bleeding compared with LMWH. Future studies examining the subset of cancer patients who drive the most benefit are encouraged.

The efficacy and safety of prophylactic use of levosimendan on patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Prophylactic use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery remains controversial and no meta-analysis has been done exclusively about that in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of levosimendan in CABG using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (till April 20, 2018). Two-hundred and forty manuscripts were identified and 21 randomized trials (1727 patients in total) investigating the effect of levosimendan on the patients undergoing CABG surgery were finally included in this analysis. We found that levosimendan was an effective, well-tolerated inotropic agent in CABG, which was associated with a significantly reduced mortality rate [odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.26, 0.71), p = 0.001, I² = 0%] and postoperative atrial fibrillation [OR 0.50, 95% CI (0.26, 0.97), p = 0.04, I² = 76%], but a higher incidence of hypotension [OR 2.26, 95% CI (1.05, 4.85), p = 0.04, I² = 79%]. Subgroup analyses revealed that such a benefit was mainly observed in the isolated CABG, the preoperative administration, with-bolus and on-pump subgroups. More high-quality and well-designed prospective studies are needed to confirm or disprove our findings in future.

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Adult Patients After Cardiac Surgery

Purpose of Review

An overview of recent literature regarding pathophysiology, risk factors, prophylaxis, and treatment of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in post-cardiac surgical patients.

Recent Findings

AF is the most frequent adverse event after cardiac surgery with significant associated morbidity, mortality, and financial cost. Its causes are multifactorial, and models to stratify patients into risk categories are progressing but a consistent, evidence-based system has not yet been developed. Pharmacologic and surgical interventions to prevent and treat this complication have been an area of ongoing research and recent societal guidelines reflect this.

Summary

Inconsistencies remain surrounding how to best identify higher-risk AF patients, which interventions should be used to prevent and treat AF, and which patient groups should receive these interventions. The evidence for these available strategies and their place in contemporary guidelines are summarized.