Background/Objectives: Esaxerenone, a novel non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, has shown promising results in the treatment of essential hypertension (HTN). This study aims to comprehensively analyze the effectiveness of esaxerenone to control BP in patients with essential HTN. Methods: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane Library from inception until January 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing esaxerenone with standard HTN usual care. The primary outcome of interest was mean changes in sitting systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Other secondary outcomes were mean changes in 24 h-SBP and 24 h-DBP, and target BP achievement. Safety outcomes, such as adverse events and increased levels of potassium/uric acid, were also assessed. Results: Our meta-analysis included four studies with a total of 1981 patients, all conducted in Japan. Esaxerenone demonstrated dose-dependent blood pressure reductions. At 5 mg, sitting DBP decreased by 4.22 mmHg (95% CI −8.72 to 0.29; p = 0.07) and SBP by 9.07 mmHg (95% CI −17.69 to −0.45; p = 0.04), while the 1.25 mg dose showed smaller, non-significant reductions. For 24 h measurements, only the 5 mg dose achieved significant reductions. Target BP achievement increased by 48% overall (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.96; p = 0.007), with stronger effects at 5 mg (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.08; p = 0.04). Esaxerenone significantly reduced nocturnal SBP by 10.62 mmHg (95% CI −14.01 to −7.23; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In patients with essential HTN, esaxerenone was shown to be safe and well-tolerated compared with usual care. Long-term data on safety is warranted.

Background: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) increases mortality but remains undertreated due to high surgical risks. Transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions (TTVI) offer safer alternatives, improving functional status and quality of life. However, many candidates for TTVI have trans-tricuspid CIED leads that may interfere with procedural imaging and device deployment and may be exposed to dislodgement, entrapment, or jailing. Evidence regarding both clinical outcomes and postprocedural CIED function in this population remains limited. Existing trial evidence for this population is scarce, requiring further safety analysis. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to address the comparative risk of complications and residual TR in patients with vs. without CIEDs. Methods: We searched for relevant articles up to March 2026 from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the selected studies, including baseline information, outcomes, comorbidities, hospitalization metrics, TR severity, and complications. All data analyses were performed using R version 4.4.1. Results: Ten studies comprising 5415 patients were included. Nine comparative studies contributed to the quantitative synthesis, whereas one single-arm study contributed only to the narrative synthesis of CIED-specific mechanical and electrical outcomes. In patients undergoing TTVI, across two studies, patients with CIEDs had a nominally lower risk of single-leaflet device attachment (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12–0.94; nominal p = 0.037); however, this exploratory finding should be considered hypothesis-generating. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between groups for cardiovascular death (RR 1.30, p = 0.815), device embolization (RR 1.62, p = 0.666), device malposition (RR 1.10, p = 0.909), stroke (RR 0.52, p = 0.335), hospitalization for heart failure (RR 1.02, p = 0.931), in-hospital mortality (RR 1.02, p = 0.959), major adverse events (RR 0.74, p = 0.635), major bleeding (RR 0.70, p = 0.187), or residual tricuspid regurgitation of mild (RR 0.98, p = 0.686) or moderate severity (RR 1.01, p = 0.646). CIED-specific outcomes were reported heterogeneously. Lead function was generally preserved after T-TEER in carefully selected patients, whereas studies of TTVR with jailed leads reported lead failure or malfunction ranging from 5.8% to 21% in individual cohorts. Conclusions: Among the comparative outcomes available for quantitative pooling, no statistically significant differences were detected between patients with and without CIEDs for most procedural and postprocedural outcomes. However, CIED-specific risks differed according to the intervention. Lead function was generally preserved after T-TEER in carefully selected patients, whereas lead jailing during TTVR was associated with clinically relevant lead malfunction in some cohorts. Therefore, the absence of significant differences in pooled clinical outcomes should not be interpreted as evidence that TTVI does not affect CIED function.

Background/Objectives: To systematically evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and safety of non-cryotherapy modalities versus standard liquid nitrogen cryotherapy for the treatment of plantar warts, while exploring the influence of specific cryotherapy procedural parameters and intervention-related subgroup characteristics on treatment outcomes. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched four major databases from inception until 1 July 2026. The primary outcome was complete clearance. Secondary outcomes included partial clearance, recurrence, and treatment-related adverse events. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. Results: Thirty-one RCTs involving 2313 patients were included. No statistically significant difference was detected between non-cryotherapy modalities and cryotherapy in complete clearance rates (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.98–1.20; p = 0.10; I² = 0.00%) or recurrence outcomes (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.56–1.44; p = 0.66). Partial clearance significantly favored cryotherapy (RR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44–0.95; p = 0.03), particularly in subgroup analyses using two freeze–thaw cycles and treatment intervals of every two weeks. Regarding safety, topical therapies demonstrated significantly lower erythema rates than cryotherapy, while no statistically significant differences were observed in blistering, scarring, or secondary bacterial infection. Conclusions: No statistically significant difference was detected between non-cryotherapy modalities and cryotherapy regarding complete clearance or recurrence of plantar warts. Cryotherapy may offer better partial clearance under optimized treatment parameters, whereas topical therapies may be better tolerated in selected patients.