Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia associated with high morbidity and mortality. AF treatment is guided by a patient–provider risk–benefit discussion regarding drug versus ablation or combination. Thermal ablation has a high rate of adverse events compared to pulsed field ablation (PFA). In this systematic review, we aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of PFA. Methods: The electronic search for relevant articles in English was completed in PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane library, Scopus, and Embase databases till July 2022. The screening was completed via the use of Covidence software. The risk of bias assessment and data extraction from the included studies was performed, and the narrative synthesis was performed accordingly. Results: A total of six studies were selected for review and 1897 patients receiving PFA were involved in these studies. Our review was focused on pulmonary vein isolation success, major adverse events, and arrhythmia recurrence. Successful pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) was completed in 100% of cases except in two studies. In one of them, six out of seven patients (86%) in the epicardial cohort had successful PVI. In the MANIFEST-PF survey, the acute PVI success rate was 99.9%. The major complications were rare and included pericardial tamponade, vascular complications requiring surgery, and stroke. The atrial arrhythmia recurrence was higher in the thermal group than in the PFA group (39% vs. 11%). Conclusions: The success rate of PVI by PFA is high, and major adverse events are low. PFA is found to decrease the recurrence of atrial arrhythmia compared to thermal ablation. Substantial randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to validate the efficacy and safety of PFA over conventional methods.

Background: There is no clear consensus on the preference for pharmacological cardioversion (PC) in comparison to electric cardioversion (EC) for hemodynamically stable new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess PC (whether being followed by EC or not) vs. EC in achieving cardioversion for hemodynamically stable NOAF patients. PubMed, PubMed Central, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched to include relevant studies until 7 March 2022. The primary outcome was the successful restoration of sinus rhythm, and secondary outcomes included emergency department (ED) revisits with atrial fibrillation (AF), hospital readmission rate, length of hospital stay, and cardioversion-associated adverse events. Results: A total of three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one observational study were included. There was no difference in the rates of successful restoration to sinus rhythm (88.66% vs. 85.25%; OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.35–3.71; n = 868). There was no statistical difference across the two groups for ED revisits with AF, readmission rates, length of hospital stay, and cardioversion-associated adverse effects, with the exception of hypotension, whose incidence was lower in the EC group (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04–0.27: n = 727). Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that there is no difference in successful restoration of sinus rhythm with either modality among patients with hemodynamically stable NOAF.

Background: Outcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in patients with COVID-19 have been reported by several small single-institutional studies; however, there are no large studies contrasting COVID-19 IHCA with non-COVID-19 IHCA. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes following IHCA between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched databases using predefined search terms and appropriate Boolean operators. All the relevant articles published till August 2022 were included in the analyses. The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to measure effects. Results: Among 855 studies screened, 6 studies with 27,453 IHCA patients (63.84% male) with COVID-19 and 20,766 (59.7% male) without COVID-19 were included in the analysis. IHCA among patients with COVID-19 has lower odds of achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.62–0.70). Similarly, patients with COVID-19 have higher odds of 30-day mortality following IHCA (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 2.08–2.45) and have 45% lower odds of cardiac arrest because of a shockable rhythm (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.50–0.60) (9.59% vs. 16.39%). COVID-19 patients less commonly underwent targeted temperature management (TTM) or coronary angiography; however, they were more commonly intubated and on vasopressor therapy as compared to patients who did not have a COVID-19 infection. Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that IHCA with COVID-19 has a higher mortality and lower rates of ROSC compared with non-COVID-19 IHCA. COVID-19 is an independent risk factor for poor outcomes in IHCA patients.