There are conflicting data regarding the effect of digoxin use on mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or with congestive heart failure (CHF). The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide detailed analysis of the currently available study reports. We performed a MEDLINE and a COCHRANE search (1993–2014) of the English literature dealing with the effects of digoxin on all-cause-mortality in subjects with AF or CHF. Only full-sized articles published in peer-reviewed journals were considered for this meta-analysis. A total of 19 reports were identified. Nine reports dealt with AF patients, seven with patients suffering from CHF, and three with both clinical conditions. Based on the analysis of adjusted mortality results of all 19 studies comprising 326 426 patients, digoxin use was associated with an increased relative risk of all-cause mortality [Hazard ratio (HR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07 to 1.38, P < 0.01]. Compared with subjects not receiving glycosides, digoxin was associated with a 29% increased mortality risk (HR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.39) in the subgroup of publications comprising 235 047 AF patients. Among 91.379 heart failure patients, digoxin-associated mortality risk increased by 14% (HR 1.14, 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.22). The present systematic review and meta-analysis of all available data sources suggest that digoxin use is associated with an increased mortality risk, particularly among patients suffering from AF.

Cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) and subclavian puncture (SP) are widely used techniques for lead insertion of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Whether one technique is superior to the other, is still being debated. The purpose of this study was to compare CVC vs. SP for lead implantation in CIEDs with respect to the incidence of pneumothorax, lead failure, and bleeding. We performed a systematic search of the pertinent literature on lead implantation in CIEDs via PubMed and Cochrane databases published over the last 25 years. Standard meta-analytic methods were applied to compare incidences of outcomes of interest. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the impact of each study on the overall effect size. Risk of publication bias was assessed. A total of 20 studies were included in the analysis. These studies comprised more than 30 000 patients with more than 50 000 leads implanted via CVC or SP. The incidence of pneumothorax was lower with the CVC technique (n = 29/15 065, 0.19% vs. n = 205/15 824, 1.30%) [odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.42, P < 0.001]. With respect to overall lead failure, CVC was associated with better outcomes as compared to SP (n = 10/2002, 0.50% vs. n = 40/2080, 1.92%) (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13-0.51, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in bleeding events (n = 25/811, 3.08% vs. n = 20/2136, 0.94%) (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.37-7.79, P = 0.50). This comprehensive meta-analysis demonstrates lower risk for pneumothorax and lead failure associated with CVC as compared to SP. Cephalic vein cutdown should constitute the preferred venous access.

Patients with conventional pacemakers or implanted defibrillators are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Our aim was to summarize the available evidences regarding the clinical benefits of upgrade procedures. A systematic literature search was performed from studies published between 2006 and 2017 in order to compare the outcome of CRT upgrade vs. de novo implantations. Outcome data on all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class, QRS narrowing and echocardiographic parameters were analysed. A total of 16 reports were analysed comprising 489,568 CRT recipients, of whom 468,205 patients underwent de novo and 21,363 upgrade procedures. All-cause mortality was similar after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88–1.60, p = 0.27). The risk of heart failure was also similar in both groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70–1.32, p = 0.81). There was no significant difference in clinical response after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations in terms of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (ΔEF de novo − 6.85% vs. upgrade − 9.35%; p = 0.235), NYHA class (ΔNYHA de novo − 0.74 vs. upgrade − 0.70; p = 0.737) and QRS narrowing (ΔQRS de novo − 9.6 ms vs. upgrade − 29.5 ms; p = 0.485). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available studies reports that CRT upgrade is associated with similar risk for all-cause mortality compared to de novo resynchronization therapy. Benefits on reverse remodelling and functional capacity improved similarly in both groups suggesting that CRT upgrade may be safely and effectively offered in routine practice. Clinical Trial Registration: Prospero Database—CRD42016043747