Background: Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (S‐ICDs) have been of great interest as an alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (TV‐ICDs). No meta‐analyses synthesizing data from high‐quality studies have yet been published. Methods and Results: An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials or propensity score–matched studies comparing S‐ICD against TV‐ICD in patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator indication. The primary outcomes were device‐related complications and lead‐related complications. Secondary outcomes were inappropriate shocks, appropriate shock, all‐cause mortality, and infection. All outcomes were pooled under random‐effects meta‐analyses and reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Kaplan–Meier curves of device‐related complications were digitized to retrieve individual patient data and pooled under a 1‐stage meta‐analysis using Cox models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) of patients undergoing S‐ICD versus TV‐ICD. A total of 5 studies (2387 patients) were retrieved. S‐ICD had a similar rate of device‐related complications compared with TV‐ICD (RR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.33–1.04]; P =0.070), but a significantly lower lead‐related complication rate (RR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07–0.29]; P <0.0001). The individual patient data–based 1‐stage stratified Cox model for device‐related complications across 4 studies yielded no significant difference (shared‐frailty HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.61–1.09]; P =0.167), but visual inspection of pooled Kaplan–Meier curves suggested a divergence favoring S‐ICD. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between both modalities. Conclusions: S‐ICD is clinically superior to TV‐ICD in terms of lead‐related complications while demonstrating comparable efficacy and safety. For device‐related complications, S‐ICD may be beneficial over TV‐ICD in the long term. These indicate that S‐ICD is likely a suitable substitute for TV‐ICD in patients requiring implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation without a pacing indication.

Direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have demonstrated superior efficacy in preventing stroke and death compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but their influence on dementia risk remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative risks of dementia in DOAC vs warfarin in patients with AF. An electronic literature search was conducted to retrieve studies reporting comparisons of dementia incidence between patients treated with DOACs and warfarin for AF. HRs and 95% CI were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed to identify prognostic baseline variables. Network meta-analysis was performed to determine dementia risk between individual DOACs and warfarin. Ten studies (n = 342,624) were retrieved. DOAC was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing dementia compared with warfarin (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80-0.98; P = 0.017; I² = 75%); significance was also seen in Asian patients (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.86) but not non-Asian patients. Subgroup analyses of propensity score–matched studies and patients aged 65-75 years showed similar significance, but not for patients aged ≥75 years. Meta-regression found that a lower mean age corresponded to significantly greater favoring of DOAC over warfarin. Network meta-analysis found significant reductions in dementia risk over warfarin for rivaroxaban (HR: 0.854; 95% CI: 0.763-0.955), apixaban (HR: 0.881; 95% CI: 0.778-0.997), and dabigatran (HR: 0.871; 95% CI: 0.770-0.987); the highest-ranked treatment based on P scores was edoxaban. The use of DOAC in AF significantly reduces dementia risk compared with warfarin, particularly in Asian patients. The possible reversal of this effect with increasing age merits further randomized trials with long-term follow-up. (Dementia Risk of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; CRD42022365634)

Mapping of scar‐related atrial tachycardias (AT) can be challenging even with the use of high‐density (HD) mapping catheter. Advisor^TM HD Grid is the only directional HD mapping catheter which not only identify local electrical signal but more importantly capture the direction of wave front propagation especially in low voltage zone. Accordingly, we present a case of complex scar‐related AT with the use of Advisor^TM HD Grid which showed clear fractionated signal at isthmus area as compare to the absence of signal on ablation catheter at the same area despite adequate contact force. Ablation at this area terminated the tachycardia.

Introduction: Supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) is commonly encountered in the emergency department (ED). Vagal manoeuvres are internationally recommended therapy in stable patients. The head down deep breathing (HDDB) technique was previously described as an acceptable vagal manoeuvre, but there are no studies comparing its efficacy to other vagal manoeuvres. Our objective in this study was to compare the rates of successful cardioversion with HDDB and the commonly practiced, modified Valsalva manoeuvre (VM). Methods: We conducted a randomised controlled trial at an acute hospital ED. Patients presenting with SVT were randomly assigned to HDDB or modified VM in a 1:1 ratio. A block randomisation sequence was prepared by an independent biostatistician, and then serially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes were opened just before the intervention. Patients and caregivers were not blinded. Primary outcome was cardioversion to sinus rhythm. Secondary outcome(s) included adverse effects/complications of each technique. Results: A total of 41 patients were randomised between 1 August, 2018–1 February, 2020 (20 HDDB and 21 modified VM). Amongst the 41 patients, three spontaneously cardioverted to sinus rhythm before receiving the allocated treatment and were excluded. Cardioversion was achieved in six patients (31.6%) and seven patients (36.8%) with HDDB and modified VM, respectively (odds ratio1.26, 95% confidence interval, 0.33, 4.84, P = 0.733) . Seventeen (89.5%) patients in the HDDB group and 14 (73.7%) from the modified VM group did not encounter any adverse effects. No major adverse cardiovascular events were recorded. Conclusion: Both the head down deep breathing technique and the modified Valsalva manoeuvre appear safe and effective in cardioverting patients with SVT in the ED.