Peripheral artery disease and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac rhythm disturbance and leads to morbidity and mortality. Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with atherosclerotic risk factors and always classified as a vascular disease and deemed to be a bad complication of AF. In patients with AF, the risk and prognostic value of PAD have not been estimated comprehensively.Hypothesis
PAD is associated with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and other outcomes in patients with AF.Methods
We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for prospective studies published before April 2021 that provided outcomes data on PAD in confirmed patients with AF. Heterogeneity was estimated using the I2 statistic. The fixed-effects model was used for low to moderate heterogeneity studies, and the random-effects model was used for high heterogeneity studies.Results
Eight prospective studies (Newcastle-Ottawa score range, 7-8) with 39 654 patients were enrolled. We found a significant association between PAD and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-1.62; p < .001), CV mortality (HR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.05; p < .001) and MACE (HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.38-2.22; p < .001) in patients with AF. No significant relationship was found in major bleeding (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95-1.57; p = 0.118), myocardial infarction (MI) (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.17-3.67; p = .038), and stroke (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.50, p = 0.351).Conclusions
PAD is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and MACE in patients with AF. However, no significant association was found with major bleeding, MI, and stroke.
SUBMITTER: Zhu J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8364730 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Prior meta-analyses have shown that new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) occurs in up to 40% of patients following cardiac surgery and is associated with substantial major adverse cardiovascular events. The stroke and mortality implications of NOAF in isolated CABG without concomitant valve surgery is not known. We thought that NOAF would be associated with increased risk of stroke and mortality, even in patients undergoing isolated CABG. A blinded review of studies from MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science was done by two independent investigators. Stroke, 30-day/hospital mortality, long-term cardiovascular mortality, and long-term (>1 year) all-cause mortality were analyzed. We used Review Manager Version 5.3 to perform pooled analysis of outcomes. Of 4461 studies identified, 19 studies (n = 129 628) met inclusion criteria. NOAF incidence ranged from 15% to 36%. NOAF was associated with increased risk of stroke (unadjusted OR 2.15 [1.82, 2.53] [P < .00001]; adjusted OR 1.88 [1.02, 3.46] [P = .04]). NOAF was associated with increased 30-day/hospital mortality (OR 2.35 [1.67, 3.32] [P < .00001]) and long-term cardiovascular mortality (OR 2.04 [1.35, 3.09] [P = .0007]) NOAF was associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality (unadjusted OR 1.79 [1.63, 1.96] [P < .00001]; adjusted OR 1.58 [1.24, 2.00] [P = .0002]). We found that the incidence of NOAF following isolated CABG is high and is associated with increased stroke rate and mortality. Early recognition and management of NOAF could improve outcomes.
| S-EPMC7462196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLong term management of patients with stable coronary artery disease of >1 year after myocardial infarction (MI) or percutaneous coronary intervention and atrial fibrillation is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using oral anti-coagulation (OAC) alone although the recommendation is weak and there is low quality evidence. Two new randomized control trials (RCTs) were published recently. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of these studies on patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of published RCTs and observational studies to compare OAC alone versus OAC plus single anti-platelet therapy.MethodsElectronic searches were conducted using appropriate terms from 3 databases. Relevant studies included. Data extracted and analysis were performed using STATA.MeasurementsSummary statistics were pooled and measured for primary and secondary outcomes of both treatment arms.Main resultsEight studies involving 10,120 patients were included for the analysis. Five thousand two hundred thirty-seven patients were on combination therapy while 4883 were on OAC alone. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio [HR] 1.067; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.912-1.249; P value .417). There was no statistically significant difference even in the measured secondary outcomes namely all cause mortality (HR 1.048; 95% CI 0.830-1.323; P value .695), cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.863; 95% CI 0.593-1.254; P value .439). However, we found statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the incidence of MI with higher incidence in mono therapy group (HR 1.229; 95% CI 1.011-1.495; P value .039) and higher incidence of major bleeding in the combination therapy group in the subgroup analysis (HR 0.649; 95% CI 0.464-0.907; P value .011).ConclusionWe found no reduction of major adverse cardiac event between combination therapy and mono therapy. Although mono therapy showed increased risk of major bleeding overall, subgroup analysis of the RCTs showed increased risk of major bleeding in the combination therapy group. MI was higher in the mono therapy group compared to the combination therapy group, however this outcome was not reproducible in the subgroup analysis of the RCTs.
| S-EPMC9191377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSignificant race and sex disparities exist in the prevalence, diagnosis, and outcomes of peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, clinical trials evaluating treatments for PAD often lack representative patient populations. This systematic review aims to summarize the demographic representation and enrollment strategies in clinical trials of lower-extremity endovascular interventions for PAD.MethodsFollowing the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched multiple sources (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinicaltrials.gov, WHO clinical trial registry) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RCT protocols, and peer-reviewed journal publications of RCTs conducted between January 2012 and December 2022. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize trial characteristics, publication or study protocol characteristics, and the reporting of demographic characteristics. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between demographic characteristics and certain trial characteristics.ResultsA total of 2,374 records were identified. Of these, 59 met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 35 trials, 14 publications, and 10 protocols. Information regarding demographic representation was frequently missing. While all 14 trial publications reported age and sex, only 4 reported race/ethnicity, and none reported socioeconomic or marital status. Additionally, only 4 publications reported clinical outcomes by demographic characteristics. Meta-regression analysis revealed that 6% more women were enrolled in non-European trials (36%) than in European trials (30%).ConclusionsThe findings of this review highlight potential issues that may compromise the reliability and external validity of study findings in lower-extremity PAD RCTs when applied to the real-world population. Addressing these issues is crucial to enhance the generalizability and impact of clinical trial results in the field of PAD, ultimately leading to improved clinical outcomes for patients in underrepresented populations.RegistrationThe systematic review methodology was published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022378304).
| S-EPMC10865563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend rhythm control for improving symptoms and quality of life in symptomatic patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the long-term prognostic outcomes of rhythm control compared with rate control are still inconclusive. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the effects of early rhythm control compared with rate control on clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed AF patients.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases up to August 2022 for randomized and observational studies reporting the associations of early rhythm control (defined as within 12 months of AF diagnosis) with effectiveness outcomes. The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, admission to hospital for heart failure (HF), or acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from each study were pooled using a random-effects model, complemented with an inverse variance heterogeneity or quality effects model.ResultsA total of 8 studies involving 447,202 AF patients were included, and 23.5% of participants underwent an early rhythm-control therapy. In the pooled analysis using the random-effects model, compared with rate control, the early rhythm-control strategy was significantly associated with reductions in the primary composite outcome (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.86-0.89) and secondary outcomes, including stroke or systemic embolism (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.71-0.85), ischemic stroke (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.69-0.94), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.99), HF hospitalization (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92), and ACS (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76-0.98). Reanalyses using the inverse variance heterogeneity or quality effects model yielded similar results.ConclusionsOur current meta-analysis suggested that early initiation of rhythm control treatment was associated with improved adverse effectiveness outcomes in patients who had been diagnosed with AF within 1 year.RegistrationThe study protocol was registered to PROSPERO (CRD42021295405).
| S-EPMC9558983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInflammation is a common feature of both peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and periodontitis. Some studies have evaluated the association between PAD and periodontitis. However, there is still no specialized meta-analysis that has quantitatively assessed the strength of the association. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to critically assess the strength of the association between PAD and periodontitis.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for observational studies of the association between periodontitis and PAD in February 2018. Risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from included studies were pooled to evaluate the strength of the association between periodontitis and PAD. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and their 95% CIs were pooled to compare the difference in periodontal-related parameters between PAD and non-PAD patients.ResultsSeven studies including a total of 4307 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed that there was a significant difference in the risk of periodontitis between PAD patients and non-PAD participants (RR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.25-2.29, P = 0.01). There was also a significant difference in number of missing teeth between PAD patients and non-PAD participants (WMD = 3.75, 95% CI = 1.31-6.19, P = 0.003). No significant difference was found in clinical attachment loss between PAD patients and non-PAD participants (WMD = - 0.05, 95% CI = - 0.03-0.19, P = 0.686).ConclusionIn conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis revealed a significant relationship between periodontitis and PAD. Moreover, our study indicated that PAD patients had more missing teeth than control subjects did. Further high-quality and well-designed studies with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria are required to strengthen the conclusions of this study.
| S-EPMC6035462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe outcomes from pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) are suboptimal, but the benefits of additional lesion sets remain unproven. Recent studies propose ablation of AF drivers improves outcomes over PVI, yet with conflicting reports in the literature. We undertook a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to determine outcomes from ablation of AF drivers in addition to PVI or as a stand-alone procedure.MethodsDatabase search was done using the terms atrial fibrillation and ablation or catheter ablation and driver or rotor or focal impulse or FIRM (Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation). We pooled data using random effects model and assessed heterogeneity with I2 statistic.ResultsSeventeen studies met inclusion criteria, in a cohort size of 3294 patients. Adding AF driver ablation to PVI reported freedom from AF of 72.5% (confidence interval [CI], 62.1%-81.8%; P<0.01) and from all arrhythmias of 57.8% (CI, 47.5%-67.7%; P<0.01). AF driver ablation when added to PVI or as stand-alone procedure compared with controls produced an odds ratio of 3.1 (CI, 1.3-7.7; P=0.02) for freedom from AF and an odds ratio of 1.8 (CI, 1.2-2.7; P<0.01) for freedom from all arrhythmias in 4 controlled studies. AF termination rate was 40.5% (CI, 30.6%-50.9%) and predicted favorable outcome from ablation(P<0.05).ConclusionsIn controlled studies, the addition of AF driver ablation to PVI supports the possible benefit of a combined approach of AF driver ablation and PVI in improving single-procedure freedom from all arrhythmias. However, most studies are uncontrolled and are limited by substantial heterogeneity in outcomes. Large multicenter randomized trials are needed to precisely define the benefits of adding driver ablation to PVI.
| S-EPMC6474343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecently, emerging evidence has suggested that atrial fibrillation (AF) has an epidemiological correlation with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical outcomes of AF in COVID-19 remain inconsistent and inconclusive. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive description of the impact of AF on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.MethodsThree electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched for eligible studies as of March 1, 2021. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the associations between AF (preexisting and new-onset) and in-hospital mortality, post-discharge mortality, and ventilator use.ResultsA total of 36 individual studies were incorporated into our meta-analysis. The combined results revealed that preexisting AF was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (pooled OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.60-2.67; p < 0.001), post-discharge mortality (pooled OR: 2.69; 95% CI: 1.24-5.83; p < 0.05), and ventilator utilization (pooled OR: 4.53; 95% CI: 1.33-15.38; p < 0.05) in patients with COVID-19. In addition, our data demonstrated that new-onset AF during severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was significantly correlated with increased mortality (pooled OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 2.04-2.77; p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe presence of AF is correlated with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, which deserves increased attention and should be managed appropriately to prevent adverse outcomes.
| S-EPMC8483996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPost-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication after cardiac surgery. Recent studies had shown this phenomenon is no longer considered transitory and is associated with higher risk of thromboembolic events or death. The aim of this study was to systematically review and analyze previous studies comparing oral anticoagulation therapy with no anticoagulation, regarding these long-term outcomes.MethodsPubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Database were systematically searched to identify the studies comparing the risk of stroke, or thromboembolic events or mortality of POAF patients who received anticoagulation compared with those who were not anticoagulated. Incidence of stroke, thromboembolic events and all-cause mortality were evaluated up to 10 years after surgery. Time-to-event outcomes were collected through hazard ratio (HR) along with their variance and the early endpoints using frequencies or odds ratio (OR). Random effect models were used to compute statistical combined measures and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was evaluated through Q statistic-related measures of variance (Tau2, I2, Chi-squared test).ResultsEight observational cohort studies were selected, including 15,335 patients (3492 on Oral Anticoagulants (OAC) vs 11,429 without OAC) that met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Patients had a wide gender distribution (38.6-82.3%), each study with a mean age above 65 years (67.5-85). Vitamin K antagonists were commonly prescribed anticoagulants (74.3-100%). OAC was associated with a protective impact on all-cause mortality at a mean of 5.0 years of follow-up (HR is 0.85 [0.72-1.01]; p = 0.07; I2 = 48%). Thromboembolic events did not differ between the two treatment arms (HR 0.68 [0.40-1.15], p = 0.15).ConclusionCurrent literature suggests a possibly protective impact of OAC therapy for all-cause mortality in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. However, it does not appear to impact thromboembolism rate.
| S-EPMC8603521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Persons with CKD are at a higher risk of developing peripheral artery disease (PAD) and its adverse health outcomes than individuals in the general population who have normal renal function. Classic atherosclerosis risk factors (eg, age, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia) are common in patients with CKD, but CKD also imposes additional unique risk factors that promote arterial disease (eg, chronic inflammation, hypoalbuminemia, and a procalcific state). Current nephrology clinical practice is adversely affected by PAD diagnostic challenges, the complexities of managing 2 serious comorbid diseases, delayed vascular specialist referral, and slow PAD treatment initiation in patients with CKD. Persons with CKD are less likely to be provided recommended "optimal" PAD care. The knowledge that both limb and mortality outcomes are significantly worse in patients with CKD, especially those on dialysis, is not just a biologic fact but can serve as a care delivery call to action. Nephrologists can facilitate positive change. This article proposes that patients with PAD and CKD be strategically comanaged by care teams that encompass the skills to create and use evidence-based care pathways. This proposed collaborative multidisciplinary approach will include vascular medicine specialists, nephrologists, wound specialists, and mid-level providers. Just as clinical care quality metrics have served as the base for ESRD and acute MI quality improvement, it is time that such quality outcomes metrics be initiated for the large PAD-CKD population. This new system will identify and resolve key gaps in the current care model so that clinical outcomes improve within a cost-effective care frame for this vulnerable population.
| S-EPMC4254470 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundStroke prevention is complicated in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease (CAD). We compared the risk of major bleeding among Japanese patients with AF and CAD commencing warfarin, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban.MethodsThis study included adults with AF and CAD who were newly prescribed the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dabigatran or rivaroxaban, or warfarin, and registered between 18 April 2011 through 31 December 2020 in the Medical Data Vision hospital-based clinical database. The primary outcome was major bleeding, and the secondary outcome was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, all-cause inpatient mortality, major bleeding, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracerebral hemorrhage. Cox proportional hazard models with stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95 % CIs via a two-step approach; first between warfarin and each NOAC, then between NOACs if sample size conditions were met.ResultsDabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin groups included 6712, 20,329, and 12,316 patients, respectively. Major bleeding risk was lower in NOACs versus warfarin (dabigatran: HR 0.50, 95 % CI: 0.40-0.62; rivaroxaban: HR 0.78, 95 % CI: 0.69-0.90); this risk was lower with dabigatran compared with rivaroxaban (HR 0.64, 95 % CI: 0.51─0.79). Net clinical benefit was superior to warfarin in both NOACs (dabigatran: HR 0.78, 95 % CI: 0.71-0.85; rivaroxaban: HR 0.83, 95 % CI: 0.78-0.88).ConclusionsAmong real-world Japanese patients with AF and CAD, NOACs were associated with better clinical outcomes than warfarin. Treatment with dabigatran had a lower risk of major bleeding than rivaroxaban.Clinical trial registration: NCT05051904 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
| S-EPMC10651495 | biostudies-literature