De novo implantation vs. upgrade cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with conventional pacemakers or implanted defibrillators are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Our aim was to summarize the available evidences regarding the clinical benefits of upgrade procedures. A systematic literature search was performed from studies published between 2006 and 2017 in order to compare the outcome of CRT upgrade vs. de novo implantations. Outcome data on all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class, QRS narrowing and echocardiographic parameters were analysed. A total of 16 reports were analysed comprising 489,568 CRT recipients, of whom 468,205 patients underwent de novo and 21,363 upgrade procedures. All-cause mortality was similar after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88-1.60, p = 0.27). The risk of heart failure was also similar in both groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.32, p = 0.81). There was no significant difference in clinical response after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations in terms of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (DeltaEF de novo - 6.85% vs. upgrade - 9.35%; p = 0.235), NYHA class (DeltaNYHA de novo - 0.74 vs. upgrade - 0.70; p = 0.737) and QRS narrowing (DeltaQRS de novo - 9.6 ms vs. upgrade - 29.5 ms; p = 0.485). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available studies reports that CRT upgrade is associated with similar risk for all-cause mortality compared to de novo resynchronization therapy. Benefits on reverse remodelling and functional capacity improved similarly in both groups suggesting that CRT upgrade may be safely and effectively offered in routine practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero Database-CRD42016043747

Does oral alprazolam affect ventilation? a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

The respiratory effects of benzodiazepines have been controversial. This investigation aimed to study the effects of oral alprazolam on ventilation. In a randomised, double-blind cross-over protocol, 20 healthy men ingested 1 mg of alprazolam or placebo in random order, 1 week apart. Ventilation was unobtrusively monitored by inductance plethysmography along with end-tidal PCO2 and pulse oximetry 60-160 min after drug intake. Subjects were encouraged to keep eyes open. Meanï¿(1/2)+/- was similar (6.21 +/- 0.71 vs 6.41 +/- 1.12 L/min, P = NS). End-tidal PCO2 and oxygen saturation did also not differ between treatments. However, coefficients of variation of minute ventilation after alprazolam exceeded those after placebo (43 +/- 23% vs 31 +/- 13%, P < 0.05). More encouragements to keep eyes open were required after alprazolam than after placebo (5.2 +/- 5.7 vs 1.3 +/- 2.3 calls, P < 0.05). In a multiple regression analysis, higher coefficients of variation of minute ventilation after alprazolam were related to a greater number of calls. Oral alprazolam in a mildly sedative dose has no clinically relevant effect on ventilation in healthy, awake men. The increased variability of ventilation on alprazolam seems related to vigilance fluctuations rather than to a direct drug effect on ventilation