His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch pacing on ventricular function in atrial fibrillation patients referred for pacing:a prospective crossover comparison

BACKGROUND His bundle pacing(HBP)and left bundle branch pacing(LBBP)both provide physiologic pacing which maintain left ventricular synchrony.They both improve heart failure(HF)symptoms in atrial fibrillation(AF)patients.We aimed to assess the intra-patient comparison of ventricular function and remodeling as well as leads parameters corresponding to two pacing modalities in AF patients referred for pacing in intermediate term.METHODS Uncontrolled tachycardia AF patients with both leads implantation successfully were randomized to either modality.Echocardiographic measurements,New York Heart Association(NYHA)classification,quality-of-life assessments and leads parameters were obtained at baseline and at each 6-month follow up.Left ventricular function including the left ventricular endosystolic volume(LVESV),left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF)and right ventricular(RV)function quantified by tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion(TAPSE)were all assessed.RESULTS Consecutively twenty-eight patients implanted with both HBP and LBBP leads successfully were enrolled(69.1±8.1 years,53.6% male,LVEF 59.2%±13.7%).The LVESV was improved by both pacing modalities in all patients(n=23)and the LVEF was improved in patients with baseline LVEF at less than 50%(n=6).The TAPSE was improved by HBP but not LBBP(n=23).CONCLUSION In this crossover comparison between HBP and LBBP,LBBP was found to have an equivalent effect on LV function and remodeling but better and more stable parameters in AF patients with uncontrolled ventricular rates referred for atrioventricular node(AVN)ablation.HBP could be preferred in patients with reduced TAPSE at baseline rather than LBBP.

Associations between the use of red yeast rice preparations and adverse health outcomes:An umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials

Background:Red yeast rice(RYR),a natural lipid-lowering agent,is widely used in clinical practice.However,the existing meta-analyses concerning the safety of RYR preparations have yielded inconsistent results,and the credibility of the evidence has not been quantified.Objective:This study was designed to evaluate the existing evidence and offer a comprehensive understanding of the associations between the use of RYR preparations and various adverse health outcomes.Search strategy:Seven literature databases were searched from inception to May 5,2023,using medical subject headings and free-text terms(e.g.,“red yeast rice,”“Xuezhikang,”and“Zhibitai”).Inclusion criteria:Meta-analyses that investigated and quantitatively estimated associations between the use of RYR preparations and adverse health outcomes were included in this study.Data extraction and analysis:Two researchers independently extracted data using a standardized data collection table;any disagreements were resolved by consulting a third researcher.Based on the participant,intervention,comparator and outcome(PICO)framework in each eligible meta-analysis,a series of unique associations between the use of RYR preparations and adverse health outcomes were determined.The associations’effect estimates were re-evaluated using random-effect models.Results:Fifteen meta-analyses,comprising 186(164 unique)randomized controlled trials,were identified.Based on A Mea Surement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews version 2,3(20%)and 12(80%)of these meta-analyses had low and critically low confidence,respectively.A total of 61 unique associations between the use of RYR preparations and adverse health outcomes were extracted from eligible metaanalyses.Based on the random-effect models,10(16.4%)associations indicated a significant protective effect of RYR preparations against adverse health outcomes,while 5(8.2%)indicated an increased risk of adverse health outcomes related to uric acid,alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase levels.The other 46(75.4%)associations showed no significant difference between the use of RYR preparations and control treatments.Regarding the credibility of the evidence,21(34.4%),34(55.7%)and 6(9.8%)associations showed moderate,low and very low credibility,respectively.Conclusion:The evidence examined in this study suggests that RYR preparations are safe;however,the credibility of the evidence was not high.Further high-quality evidence is required.