Efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan vs. angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in preventing atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Herz Pub Date : 2024-09-23 DOI:10.1007/s00059-024-05275-w
Fernando Baía Bezerra, Luis Eduardo Rodrigues Sobreira, Vitor Kendi Tsuchiya Sano, Artur de Oliveira Macena Lôbo, Jorge Henrique Cavalcanti Orestes Cardoso, Francinny Alves Kelly, Francisco Cezar Aquino de Moraes, Fernanda Marciano Consolim-Colombo
{"title":"Efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan vs. angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in preventing atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Fernando Baía Bezerra, Luis Eduardo Rodrigues Sobreira, Vitor Kendi Tsuchiya Sano, Artur de Oliveira Macena Lôbo, Jorge Henrique Cavalcanti Orestes Cardoso, Francinny Alves Kelly, Francisco Cezar Aquino de Moraes, Fernanda Marciano Consolim-Colombo","doi":"10.1007/s00059-024-05275-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients who have undergone catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) may experience recurrence of this condition. The efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan (S/V) in preventing AF recurrence compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) is not established. This meta-analysis aimed to establish the best therapeutic choice for preventing AF recurrence after catheter ablation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the use of S/V with ACEI/ARB in patients who underwent catheter ablation. Results are presented as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with the I<sup>2</sup> statistic, and outcomes are expressed as relative risk (RR). R software version 4.2.3 was used for the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three RCTs and one cohort study, comprising 642 patients with 319 patients in the S/V group and 323 in the control group, were included. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 36 months, with mean ages ranging from 58.9 to 65.8 years. A significant reduction in persistent AF occurrence was demonstrated favoring the S/V group (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: [0.41, 0.70]; p = 0.000004; I<sup>2</sup>: 80%) over the ACEI/ARB group. There was no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction with S/V use (MD: 1.23; 95% CI: [-0.12, 2.60]; p = 0.076; I<sup>2</sup>: 0%) compared with ACEI/ARB. The analysis also showed a significant reduction in left atrial volume index (MD: -5.33; 95% CI: [-8.76, -1.90]; p = 0.002; I<sup>2</sup>: 57%) in the S/V group compared with the ACEI/ARB group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of S/V in reducing the incidence of AF in patients undergoing catheter ablation compared with the use of ACEI/ARB. However, more RCTs are needed for a comprehensive evaluation of its efficacy in reducing AF recurrence after catheter ablation in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":12863,"journal":{"name":"Herz","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Herz","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-024-05275-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients who have undergone catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) may experience recurrence of this condition. The efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan (S/V) in preventing AF recurrence compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) is not established. This meta-analysis aimed to establish the best therapeutic choice for preventing AF recurrence after catheter ablation.

Method: A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the use of S/V with ACEI/ARB in patients who underwent catheter ablation. Results are presented as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic, and outcomes are expressed as relative risk (RR). R software version 4.2.3 was used for the analysis.

Results: Three RCTs and one cohort study, comprising 642 patients with 319 patients in the S/V group and 323 in the control group, were included. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 36 months, with mean ages ranging from 58.9 to 65.8 years. A significant reduction in persistent AF occurrence was demonstrated favoring the S/V group (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: [0.41, 0.70]; p = 0.000004; I2: 80%) over the ACEI/ARB group. There was no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction with S/V use (MD: 1.23; 95% CI: [-0.12, 2.60]; p = 0.076; I2: 0%) compared with ACEI/ARB. The analysis also showed a significant reduction in left atrial volume index (MD: -5.33; 95% CI: [-8.76, -1.90]; p = 0.002; I2: 57%) in the S/V group compared with the ACEI/ARB group.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of S/V in reducing the incidence of AF in patients undergoing catheter ablation compared with the use of ACEI/ARB. However, more RCTs are needed for a comprehensive evaluation of its efficacy in reducing AF recurrence after catheter ablation in clinical practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Sacubitril-缬沙坦与血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂或血管紧张素受体阻滞剂在预防导管消融术后心房颤动复发方面的功效:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:因心房颤动(房颤)而接受导管消融术的患者可能会复发。与血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEIs)或血管紧张素 II 受体阻滞剂(ARBs)相比,沙库比妥-缬沙坦(S/V)在预防房颤复发方面的疗效尚未确定。本荟萃分析旨在确定预防导管消融术后房颤复发的最佳治疗选择:方法:我们对 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库进行了系统检索,以寻找随机对照试验 (RCT) 和观察性研究,比较在接受导管消融术的患者中使用 S/V 和 ACEI/ARB 的情况。结果以平均差 (MD) 和 95% 置信区间 (CI) 表示。异质性用 I2 统计量进行评估,结果用相对风险 (RR) 表示。分析使用了 4.2.3 版 R 软件:共纳入了三项 RCT 研究和一项队列研究,包括 642 例患者,其中 S/V 组 319 例,对照组 323 例。随访时间为 6 至 36 个月,平均年龄为 58.9 至 65.8 岁。与 ACEI/ARB 组相比,S/V 组的持续性房颤发生率明显降低(RR:0.54;95% CI:[0.41, 0.70];P = 0.000004;I2:80%)。与 ACEI/ARB 相比,使用 S/V 后左心室射血分数无明显差异(MD:1.23;95% CI:[-0.12,2.60];p = 0.076;I2:0%)。分析还显示,与 ACEI/ARB 组相比,S/V 组的左心房容积指数显著降低(MD:-5.33;95% CI:[-8.76,-1.90];P = 0.002;I2:57%):这项荟萃分析表明,与使用 ACEI/ARB 相比,S/V 能有效降低导管消融患者的房颤发生率。然而,在临床实践中,要全面评估 S/V 在降低导管消融术后房颤复发率方面的疗效,还需要进行更多的 RCT 研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Herz
Herz 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
61
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Herz is the high-level journal for further education for all physicians interested in cardiology. The individual issues of the journal each deal with specific topics and comprise review articles in English and German written by competent and esteemed authors. They provide up-to-date and comprehensive information concerning the speciality dealt with in the issue. Due to the fact that all relevant aspects of the pertinent topic of an issue are considered, an overview of the current status and progress in cardiology is presented. Reviews and original articles round off the spectrum of information provided.
期刊最新文献
E-cigarettes and vaping, new spotlight on smoking as an old cardiovascular risk factor? Alcohol consumption-none is better than a little. Effects of cannabis use on the heart. Erratum to: Efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan vs. angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in preventing atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methamphetamine-induced cardiotoxicity: in search of protective transcriptional mechanisms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1