The Utility of Coronary Revascularization to Reduce Ventricular Arrhythmias in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: A Systematic Review
Junarta, Joey; Siddiqui, Muhammad U; Abaza, Ehab; Zhang, Peter; Patel, Anjani; Park, David S; Aizer, Anthony; Razzouk, Louai; Rao, Sunil V
Ventricular arrhythmias (VA) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Current guidelines recommend revascularization of significant CAD to improve survival in patients with ventricular fibrillation (VF), polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT), or those who are post-cardiac arrest. However, revascularization is not recommended for CAD patients with suspected scar-mediated monomorphic VT. There is a paucity of data detailing the utility of revascularization in reducing VA in CAD patients who do not present with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and are not immediately post-cardiac arrest, which is the focus of this review. Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched to identify relevant studies addressing this question. Studies that included patients presenting with ACS or those who were immediately post-cardiac arrest at the time of revascularization were excluded. In total, five studies comprising 2663 patients were reviewed.
PMID: 39696811
ISSN: 1522-726x
CID: 5764642
Catheter ablation alone versus catheter ablation with combined percutaneous left atrial appendage closure for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Junarta, Joey; Siddiqui, Muhammad U; Abaza, Ehab; Zhang, Peter; Roshandel, Aarash; Barbhaiya, Chirag R; Jankelson, Lior; Park, David S; Holmes, Douglas; Chinitz, Larry A; Aizer, Anthony
BACKGROUND:Combined catheter ablation (CA) with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) may produce comprehensive treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) whereby rhythm control is achieved and stroke risk is reduced without the need for chronic oral anticoagulation. However, the efficacy and safety of this strategy is still controversial. METHODS:This meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Eligible studies reported outcomes in patients with AF who underwent combined CA and LAAC vs CA alone. Studies performing CA without pulmonary vein isolation were excluded. RESULTS:Eight studies comprising 1878 patients were included (2 RCT, 6 observational). When comparing combined CA and LAAC vs CA alone, pooled results showed no difference in arrhythmia recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.33), stroke or systemic embolism (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.27-2.22), or major periprocedural complications (RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.28-5.89). Total procedure time was shorter with CA alone (mean difference 48.45 min; 95% CI 23.06-74.62). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Combined CA with LAAC for AF is associated with similar rates of arrhythmia-free survival, stroke, and major periprocedural complications when compared to CA alone. A combined strategy may be as safe and efficacious for patients at moderate to high risk for bleeding events to negate the need for chronic oral anticoagulation.
PMID: 39230634
ISSN: 1572-8595
CID: 5687972