Diagnosis, treatment, and management of pericardial effusion - review

The hemodynamic stability of the heart and pericardium are maintained by the pericardial fluid of volume ∼10-50 ml. Pericardial effusion is associated with the abnormal accumulation of pericardial fluid in the pericardial cavity. Numerous imaging techniques are utilized to evaluate pericardial effusion including chest X-ray, electrocardiogram, transthoracic echocardiography, computed tomography scan, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and pericardiocentesis. Once diagnosed, there are numerous treatment options available for the management of patients with pericardial effusion. These include various invasive and non-invasive strategies such as pericardiocentesis, pericardial window, and sclerosing therapies. In recent times, few studies have been conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of each approach in routine clinical practice. In this review, we review the role of different modalities in the diagnosis of pericardial effusion while highlighting existing therapies aimed at the management and treatment of pericardial effusion. </p

Diagnosis, treatment, and management of pericardial effusion - review

The hemodynamic stability of the heart and pericardium are maintained by the pericardial fluid of volume ∼10-50 ml. Pericardial effusion is associated with the abnormal accumulation of pericardial fluid in the pericardial cavity. Numerous imaging techniques are utilized to evaluate pericardial effusion including chest X-ray, electrocardiogram, transthoracic echocardiography, computed tomography scan, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, and pericardiocentesis. Once diagnosed, there are numerous treatment options available for the management of patients with pericardial effusion. These include various invasive and non-invasive strategies such as pericardiocentesis, pericardial window, and sclerosing therapies. In recent times, few studies have been conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of each approach in routine clinical practice. In this review, we review the role of different modalities in the diagnosis of pericardial effusion while highlighting existing therapies aimed at the management and treatment of pericardial effusion. </p

DOACs or VKAs or LMWH - what is the optimal regimen for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Clinical guidelines have supported the use of direct anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (Ca-VTE). However, recent trials have reported increased bleeding risks associated with DOACs usage, raising concerns regarding its efficacy. Objectives: The authors conducted a meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of DOACs for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients, compared with Low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) and Vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs). Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines from inception to June 17th, 2021.The primary outcomes studied were VTE recurrence and major bleeding. Results: A total of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling almost 7000 patients were included. Direct oral anticoagulants significantly reduced VTE Recurrence in cancer patients when compared to patients treated with LMWH or VKAs (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.83; P = 0.002; I2 = 26%). There were no statistically significant differences for major bleeding (HR 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.33; P = 0.50; I2 = 34%), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (HR 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.91; P = 0.35; I2 = 66%), pulmonary embolism (HR 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.06; P = 0.10; I2 = 7%), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.12; P = 0.78; I2 = 1%), between DOACs and LMWH. Conclusion: This analysis shows that DOACs are the optimal regimen to treat Ca-VTE. They have a similar to slightly increased bleeding risk compared with LMWH and are a safer alternative to VKAs.</p

Meta-analysis evaluating the impact of chili-pepper intake on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a systematic review

Background: Dietetics today occupy a significant place in the field of research, helping to discover cardiovascular benefits of healthy diets and consumption of organic foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and whole grains. One of the components of vegetable-based diet is chili pepper (CP) which has been found to affect all-cause mortality. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, EBSCO, and Cochrane (Wiley) Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception till January 9, 2020, identifying all relevant studies using keywords and truncations. Studies were included if (1) they were observational or randomized in nature (2) included patients consuming CP and (3) evaluated direct comparison between regular and rarely/never CP consumption. Results: Our preliminary search yielded 6976 articles. Post exclusion and after full-text screening, four potential observational studies with a population of 570,762. Pooled analysis found reduced all-cause mortality in CP consumers compared to nonconsumers with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.75 [95% CI: 0.64-0.88; p = 0.0004; I 2 = 97%]. The RR for CVD, cancer related and CVA deaths were 0.74 [95% CI: 0.62-0.88; p = 0.0006, I 2 = 66%], 0.77 [95% CI: 0.71-0.84; p = 0.0001; I 2 = 49%] and 0.76 [95% CI: 0.36-1.60; p = 0.47; I2 = 93%], respectively. Conclusion: Statistically significant results of our analysis put forward a rationale indicating an association between lower risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer related deaths and CP consumption.</p

Meta-analysis evaluating the impact of chili-pepper intake on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: a systematic review

Background: Dietetics today occupy a significant place in the field of research, helping to discover cardiovascular benefits of healthy diets and consumption of organic foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and whole grains. One of the components of vegetable-based diet is chili pepper (CP) which has been found to affect all-cause mortality. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, EBSCO, and Cochrane (Wiley) Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception till January 9, 2020, identifying all relevant studies using keywords and truncations. Studies were included if (1) they were observational or randomized in nature (2) included patients consuming CP and (3) evaluated direct comparison between regular and rarely/never CP consumption. Results: Our preliminary search yielded 6976 articles. Post exclusion and after full-text screening, four potential observational studies with a population of 570,762. Pooled analysis found reduced all-cause mortality in CP consumers compared to nonconsumers with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.75 [95% CI: 0.64-0.88; p = 0.0004; I 2 = 97%]. The RR for CVD, cancer related and CVA deaths were 0.74 [95% CI: 0.62-0.88; p = 0.0006, I 2 = 66%], 0.77 [95% CI: 0.71-0.84; p = 0.0001; I 2 = 49%] and 0.76 [95% CI: 0.36-1.60; p = 0.47; I2 = 93%], respectively. Conclusion: Statistically significant results of our analysis put forward a rationale indicating an association between lower risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer related deaths and CP consumption.</p

Effect of iron supplementation in patients with heart failure and iron deficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The effectiveness of oral and intravenous iron supplementation in reducing the risk of mortality and hospitalizations in HF patients with iron deficiency is not well-established. Methods: A thorough literature search was conducted across 2 electronic databases (Medline and Cochrane Central) from inception through March 2021. RCTs assessing the impact of iron supplementation on clinical outcomes in iron deficient HF patients were considered for inclusion. Primary end-points included all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization. Evaluations were reported as odds ratios (ORs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and analysis was performed using a random effects model. I2 index was used to assess heterogeneity. Results: From the 2599 articles retrieved from initial search, 10 potentially relevant studies (n = 2187 patients) were included in the final analysis. Both oral (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.08-11.30; p = 0.951) and intravenous (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73-1.29; p = 0.840) iron supplementation did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality. However, intravenous iron supplementation significantly decreased the rates of overall (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.33-0.81; p = 0.004) and HF (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22-0.80; p = 0.009) hospitalizations. In addition, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose therapy significantly reduced the time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.50-1.00; p = 0.048), but had no effect on time to first cardiovascular death (RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.70-1.25; p = 0.655). Conclusion: Oral or intravenous iron supplementation did not reduce mortality in iron deficient HF patients. However, intravenous iron supplementation was associated with a significant decrease in overall and HF hospitalizations.</p

Efficacy of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 inhibitors in heart failure patients treated with dual angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor: an updated meta-analysis

Background: Recent data suggest that the prevalence of heart failure has increased to approximately 23 million people globally. With increasing advancement in pharmacotherapeutics, Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have garnered attention among clinicians to treat Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in diabetic as well as non-diabetic patients. Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL database were searched using relevant keywords and MeSH terms. Studies were considered only if they were randomized in nature and had a sample size >1000 HF patients. Results: Our comprehensive search strategy yielded 864 articles, of which three RCTs met the inclusion criteria with a total population of 9696. Pooled analysis revealed an association between the use of SGLT2i and decreased frequency of primary outcome irrespective of background ARNI use (HR 0.73, 95% CI [0.58-0.93], p = 0.0106; HR 0.73, 95% CI [0.66-0.81], p Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides substantial evidence, to safely use SGLT2i atop ARNI therapy in select HF patients to further improve outcomes.</p

Effect of iron supplementation in patients with heart failure and iron deficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The effectiveness of oral and intravenous iron supplementation in reducing the risk of mortality and hospitalizations in HF patients with iron deficiency is not well-established. Methods: A thorough literature search was conducted across 2 electronic databases (Medline and Cochrane Central) from inception through March 2021. RCTs assessing the impact of iron supplementation on clinical outcomes in iron deficient HF patients were considered for inclusion. Primary end-points included all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization. Evaluations were reported as odds ratios (ORs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and analysis was performed using a random effects model. I2 index was used to assess heterogeneity. Results: From the 2599 articles retrieved from initial search, 10 potentially relevant studies (n = 2187 patients) were included in the final analysis. Both oral (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.08-11.30; p = 0.951) and intravenous (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73-1.29; p = 0.840) iron supplementation did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality. However, intravenous iron supplementation significantly decreased the rates of overall (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.33-0.81; p = 0.004) and HF (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22-0.80; p = 0.009) hospitalizations. In addition, intravenous ferric carboxymaltose therapy significantly reduced the time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.50-1.00; p = 0.048), but had no effect on time to first cardiovascular death (RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.70-1.25; p = 0.655). Conclusion: Oral or intravenous iron supplementation did not reduce mortality in iron deficient HF patients. However, intravenous iron supplementation was associated with a significant decrease in overall and HF hospitalizations.</p

Does individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy improve outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The potential benefits of individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy over standard antiplatelet therapy in improving outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been established. Therefore, we pooled evidence from available clinical trials to assess the effectiveness by comparing the two regimens in patients undergoing PCI. Methods: We queried two electronic databases, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL, from their inception to April 20, 2021 for published randomized controlled trials in any language that compared guided antiplatelet therapy, using either genetic testing or platelet function testing, versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. The results from trials were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Eleven eligible studies consisting of 18,465 patients undergoing PCI were included. Pooled results indicated that guided antiplatelet therapy, compared to standard therapy, was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of MACE [RR 0·78, 95% CI (0·62-0·99), P = 0·04], MI [RR 0·73, 95% CI (0·56-0.96), P = 0·03], ST [RR 0·66, 95% CI (0·47-0.94), P = 0·02], stroke [RR 0·71, 95% CI (0·50-1.00), P = 0·05], and minor bleeding [RR 0·78, 95% CI (0·66-0.91), P = 0·003]. Conclusions: Individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced the incidence of MACE, MI, ST, stroke, and minor bleeding in adult patients when compared with standard antiplatelet therapy. Our findings support the implementation of genetic and platelet function testing to select the most beneficial antiplatelet agent.</p

Does individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy improve outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The potential benefits of individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy over standard antiplatelet therapy in improving outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been established. Therefore, we pooled evidence from available clinical trials to assess the effectiveness by comparing the two regimens in patients undergoing PCI. Methods: We queried two electronic databases, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL, from their inception to April 20, 2021 for published randomized controlled trials in any language that compared guided antiplatelet therapy, using either genetic testing or platelet function testing, versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. The results from trials were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Eleven eligible studies consisting of 18,465 patients undergoing PCI were included. Pooled results indicated that guided antiplatelet therapy, compared to standard therapy, was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of MACE [RR 0·78, 95% CI (0·62-0·99), P = 0·04], MI [RR 0·73, 95% CI (0·56-0.96), P = 0·03], ST [RR 0·66, 95% CI (0·47-0.94), P = 0·02], stroke [RR 0·71, 95% CI (0·50-1.00), P = 0·05], and minor bleeding [RR 0·78, 95% CI (0·66-0.91), P = 0·003]. Conclusions: Individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced the incidence of MACE, MI, ST, stroke, and minor bleeding in adult patients when compared with standard antiplatelet therapy. Our findings support the implementation of genetic and platelet function testing to select the most beneficial antiplatelet agent.</p