0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Myocardial Injury and Inflammation Biomarkers and Their Impact on Recurrence after Cryoballoon and Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Biomarkers of myocardial injury and inflammation were found to be different after radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for atrial fibrillation (AF); however, the results are currently controversial. This study was aimed to systematically compare the differences in myocardial injury and inflammation biomarkers after RFCA and CBA procedures and to investigate their impact on AF recurrence.

          Methods:

          Databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Biology Medicine (CBM), were systematically searched from their date of inception to May 2022. The primary outcomes of interest were the differences in myocardial injury and inflammation biomarkers after CBA and RFCA procedures for AF patients, and the impact of the biomarkers on AF recurrence. Secondary outcomes included the total ablation time, the procedure duration and the freedom from atrial tachycardia (AT).

          Results:

          Eighteen studies with a total of 1807 patients were finally enrolled. CBA treatment was associated with significantly greater increases in troponin I (TNI) levels (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.13 ug/L, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.43–3.64) both at 4–6 h (WMD = 3.94 ug/L), 24 h (WMD = 4.23 ug/L), 48 h (WMD = 2.14 ug/L) and 72 h (WMD = 0.56 ug/L), and also creatine kinade MB fraction (CK-MB) levels at 4–6 h (WMD = 33.21 U/L), 24 h (WMD = 35.84 U/L) and 48 h (WMD = 4.62 U/L), while RFCA treatment was associated with greater increases in postablation C-reactive protein (CRP) levels both at 48 h (WMD = –9.32 mg/L) and 72 h (WMD = –10.90 mg/L). The CBA and RFCA treatments had comparable rates of freedom from AT (74.5% vs. 75.2%, RR = 1.08). The CRP levels were significantly higher in patients with early recurrence of AF (ERAF) than in those without ERAF after RFCA treatment (WMD = 3.415 mg/L).

          Conclusions:

          The time-course patterns of postablation myocardial injury and inflammation biomarkers are different between RFCA and CBA procedures. The lower postprocedural elevation of myocardial injury biomarkers and the increased CRP levels may be predictive factors for ERAF.

          PROSPERO Registration Number:

          CRD42021278564.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

            Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              OUP accepted manuscript

              (2020)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Rev Cardiovasc Med
                RCM
                Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine
                IMR Press
                2153-8174
                1530-6550
                7 December 2022
                December 2022
                : 23
                : 12
                : 397
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Key Laboratory of Integrative Chinese and Western Medicine for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Circulatory Diseases of Zhejiang Province, 310006 Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
                [2] 2Department of Cardiology, Qingdao Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (Qingdao Hiser Hospital), 266000 Qingdao, Shandong, China
                [3] 3The First College of Clinical Medicine, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, 310006 Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
                [4] 4Department of Geriatrics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), 310006 Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
                Author notes
                *Correspondence: maoweilw@ 123456163.com (Wei Mao); swangxiao1215@ 123456163.com (Xiao Wang)

                These authors contributed equally.

                Article
                S1530-6550(22)00730-X
                10.31083/j.rcm2312397
                11270461
                39076669
                87b155f7-2a3e-4610-9f8e-f10c8fe8b8e7
                Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.

                History
                : 16 August 2022
                : 16 September 2022
                : 8 October 2022
                Categories
                Systematic Review

                atrial fibrillation,cryoballoon ablation,radiofrequency ablation,myocardial injury biomarkers,inflammation biomarkers,meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article