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.

Background: There are limited data available on outcomes and pathophysiology behind ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in populations without standard modifiable risk factors (SMuRFs). The authors carried out this meta-analysis to understand the differences in treatment and outcomes of STEMI patients with and without SMuRFs. Methods: A systematic database search was performed for relevant studies. Studies reporting desired outcomes among STEMI patients with and without SMuRFs were selected based on predefined criteria in the study protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42022341389). Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using Covidence. Full texts of the selected studies were independently reviewed to confirm eligibility. Data were extracted from all eligible studies via a full-text review of the primary article for qualitative and quantitative analysis. In-hospital mortality following the first episode of STEMI was the primary outcome, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), repeat myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock, heart failure, and stroke as secondary outcomes of interest. Odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI was used to estimate the effect. Results: A total of 2135 studies were identified from database search, six studies with 521 150 patients with the first STEMI episode were included in the analysis. The authors found higher in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.43; CI: 1.40–1.47) and cardiogenic shock (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.55–1.63) in the SMuRF-less group with no differences in MACE, recurrent MI, major bleeding, heart failure, and stroke. There were lower prescriptions of statin (OR: 0.62; CI: 0.42–0.91) and Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor /Angiotensin II receptor blocker (OR: 0.49; CI: 0.28–0.87) at discharge in SMuRF-less patients. There was no difference in procedures like coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, and thrombolysis. Conclusion: In the SMuRF-less STEMI patients, higher in-hospital mortality and treatment discrepancies were noted at discharge.

Background: Leadless pacemakers offer a safe and effective alternative pacing strategy. However, limited data are available for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD), a population of significant relevance. Methods: Using the Nationwide Readmission Database, we extracted data from all adult patients with ESRD who underwent traditional transvenous or leadless pacemaker implantation between 2016 and 2021. We compared in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission rates, complication rates, and healthcare resource utilization between the two cohorts. Results: A total of 6384 (81.2%) patients were included in the transvenous pacemaker cohort, and 1481(18.8%) patients were included in the leadless pacemaker cohort. In patients with ESRD, leadless pacemaker implantation was linked to higher in-hospital complications when compared to transvenous pacemakers. These included the need for blood transfusion (aOR 1.85, 95% CI 1.32–2.60, p < 0.01), vascular complications (aOR 3.6, CI 1.40–9.26, p = 0.01), and cardiac complications (aOR 4.12, CI 1.70–9.98, p < 0.01). However, there were no differences between the two groups in terms of in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission rates. The median length of stay was longer for leadless pacemaker implantation than transvenous pacemaker implantation (5 days vs. 4 days, p < 0.01). The total hospitalization charges were also higher ($139,826 vs. $93,919, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Although previous studies have demonstrated lower long-term complication rates with leadless pacemakers than transvenous pacemakers, our analysis shows a higher risk of short-term in-hospital complications in ESRD patients, though no differences in in-hospital mortality and 30-day readmissions.

Background: There are limited data on the impact of right heart failure (RHF) on patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We investigated the mortality, in-hospital complications, length of stay, and total hospitalization charges for TAVI admissions, with and without RHF. Methods: We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample data from 2018 to 2022. The International Classification of Diseases–Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to define the patient cohorts. Propensity score weighting was used to balance patient demographic, hospital-level, and comorbidity data. Results: From 2018 to 2022, there were 383,860 TAVI admissions, among which 1915 (0.50%) had the presence of RHF. Compared to patients without RHF, mortality was higher in patients with RHF (7.57% vs. 1.11%, p < 0.01). Similarly, acute kidney injury (37.10% vs. 8.56%, p < 0.01), respiratory failure (12.79% vs. 1.91%, p < 0.01), and use of mechanical circulatory support (11.48% vs. 0.83%, p < 0.01) was higher in the cohort with RHF. Median length of stay (7 days vs. 2 days, p < 0.01) and hospitalization charges ($257,239 vs. $180,501, p < 0.01) were higher in patients with RHF. Conclusions: In conclusion, we report that RHF is associated with increased mortality risk, complications, and resource utilization in patients undergoing TAVI. Right ventricular function should be a part of the evaluation for TAVI, given significantly elevated risks associated with its presence.