Background: To overcome the several drawbacks of warfarin, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were developed. Even though randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provided high-quality evidence, the real-world evidence is still needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis proposed to measure the safety and efficacy profile between warfarin and NOACs in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients in preventing stroke.Results: We collected articles about the real-world studies comparing warfarin and NOACs for NVAF patients recorded in electronic scientific databases such as Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, and Cochrane. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the generic inverse variance method. A total of 34 real-world studies, including 2287288 NVAF patients, were involved in this study. NOACs effectively reduced the stroke risk than warfarin (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87;p< 0.01). Moreover, NOACs effectively lowered all-cause mortality risk (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.81;p< 0.01). From the safety aspect, compared to warfarin, NOACs significantly reduced major bleeding risk (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86;p< 0.01) and intracranial bleeding risk (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.70;p< 0.01). However, NOACs administration failed to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding risk (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.06;p= 0.12).Conclusions: In NVAF patients, NOACs were found to be more effective than warfarin at reducing stroke risk. NOACSs also lowered the risk of all-cause mortality, cerebral hemorrhage, and severe bleeding in NVAF patients compared to warfarin.

Background Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) using the high-power short duration (HPSD) results in better ablation lesion formation in the swine model. This systematic review and meta-analysis purposed to investigate the safety and efficacy profile between HPSD and low-power long-duration (LPLD) ablation strategies to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Methods We completed the literature review after identifying the relevant articles comparing HPSD and LPLD ablation methods for AF recorded in ClinicalTrials.com, CENTRAL, PubMed, and ScienceDirect until February 2021. The overall effects were calculated using pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) for categorical and continuous data, respectively. We also estimated the 95% confidence interval (CI). Results The HPSD strategy took shorter procedure time (MD = −33.75 min; 95% CI = −44.54 to −22.97; P < .01), fluoroscopy time (MD = −5.73 min; 95% CI = −8.77 to −2.70; P < .001), and ablation time (MD = −17.71; 95% CI = −21.02 to −14.41) than LPLD strategy. The HPSD RFCA was correlated with lower risk of esophageal thermal injury (RR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.94; P = .02). The HPSD method resulted in higher first-pass pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) (RR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.64; P < .01), lower PV reconnection (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.34 to 0.64; P < .01), and lower recurrent AF (RR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.96; P = .02) than LPLD strategy. Conclusion HPSD RFCA was superior to the conventional LPLD RFCA in terms of safety and efficacy in treating AF patients.

Non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) has a complex pathophysiological process. The standard catheter ablation approach is pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). The additional value of complex fractionated electrogram (CFAE) ablation is still unclear. We aimed to investigate the additional value of CFAE ablation for non-paroxysmal AF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies up to May 2020. Articles comparing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus CFAE ablation and PVI alone for AF were obtained from the electronic scientific databases. The pooled mean difference (MD) and pooled risk ratio (RR) were assessed. A total of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 1034 patients were involved. Following a single catheter ablation procedure, the presence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) with or without the use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) between both groups were not significantly different (RR = 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.97-1.24; p = 0.13). Similar results were also obtained for the presence of any ATA without the use of AADs (RR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.96-1.22; p = 0.2). The additional CFAE ablation took longer procedure times (MD = 46.95 min; 95% CI = 38.27-55.63; p = < 0.01) and fluoroscopy times (MD = 11.69 min; 95% CI = 8.54-14.83; p = < 0.01). Additional CFAE ablation failed to improve the outcomes of non-paroxysmal AF patients. It also requires a longer duration of procedure times and fluoroscopy times.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is correlated with a poor biventricular pacing and inadequate response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Biventricular pacing improvement can be achieved by conducting the atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA). We aimed to investigate the benefit of AVJA for permanent AF and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients receiving CRT. In August 2020, a systematic review and meta-analysis study comparing CRT plus AVJA versus CRT for permanent AF and HFrEF patients was conducted. Relevant articles were identified through the electronic scientific database such as ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Cochrane. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and pooled mean difference (MD) were estimated. A total of 3199 patients from 14 cohort studies were involved in this study. Additional AVJA reduced cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61 to 0.93, P < 0.01) in permanent AF and HFrEF patients receiving CRT. Biventricular pacing rate was higher in CRT plus AVJA group (MD = 8.65%, 95% CI = 5.62 to 11.67, P < 0.01) than in CRT alone group. The reverse remodeling characterized by the reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was greater in the CRT plus AVJA group (MD = -2.11 mm, 95% CI = -3.79 to -0.42, P = 0.01). In permanent AF and HFrEF patients receiving CRT, AVJA effectively increased the biventricular pacing rate. Adequate biventricular pacing rate provided a better response to the CRT marked by the greater ventricular reverse remodeling and survival from cardiovascular mortality.

The superiority of second-generation cryoballoon (2G-CB) ablation versus contact force-sensing radiofrequency (CF-RF) ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) was assessed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATAs) (OR = 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 1.17; p = 0.41), freedom from AF (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.65 to 1.35; p = 0.72), and acute pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) (OR = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.54 to 2.53; p = 0.70) between 2G-CB ablation and CF-RF ablation were not different. The procedure time for the 2G-CB ablation was shorter (MD = −18.78 min; 95% CI = −27.72 to −9.85 min; p < 0.01), while the fluoroscopy time was similar (MD = 2.66 min; 95% CI = −0.52 to 5.83 min; p = 0.10). In the 2G-CB ablation group, phrenic nerve paralysis was more common (OR = 5.74; 95% CI = 1.80 to 18.31; p = < 0.01). Regarding freedom from ATAs, freedom from AF, and acute PVI, these findings imply that 2G-CB ablation is not superior to CF-RF ablation in paroxysmal AF. Although faster than CF-RF ablation, 2G-CB ablation has a greater risk of phrenic nerve paralysis.

Background: The advantage of prophylactic cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation for AF patients without documented atrial flutter is still unclear. The present study aimed to evaluate the role of prophylactic CTI ablation in this population. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis study was conducted. The overall effects estimation was conducted using random effects models. The pooled effects were presented as the risk difference and standardised mean difference for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 1,476 patients from four studies were included. The risk of atrial tachyarrhythmias following a successful catheter ablation procedure was greater in the pulmonary vein isolation + CTI ablation group than pulmonary vein isolation alone group (34.8% versus 28.2%; risk difference 0.08; 95% CI [0.00–0.17]; p=0.04). Prophylactic CTI ablation was associated with a higher recurrent AF rate (33.8% versus 27.1%; risk difference 0.07; 95% CI [0.01–0.13]; p=0.02). Additional prophylactic CTI ablation to pulmonary vein isolation significantly increased the radio frequency application time (standardised mean difference 0.52; 95% CI [0.04–1.01]; p=0.03). Conclusion: This study suggested that prophylactic CTI ablation was an ineffective and inefficient approach in AF without documented typical atrial flutter patients.