Search

Background Methods Results Conclusion The existing literature regarding the treatment strategy for high‐power short‐duration (HPSD) ablation in patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently insufficient. The objective of this study is to perform a comparative analysis evaluating the effectiveness, safety, and procedural efficiency of HPSD versus cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for AF.A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify trials comparing HPSD with CBA for AF from their inception until December 25, 2023. Treatment effect measures were expressed as odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), accompanied by a 95% confidence interval (CI).The analysis comprised six eligible trials involving a total enrollment of 2481 patients. No statistically significant disparities were observed in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (OR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71–1.16) or total complications (OR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.38–1.12) between the two ablation techniques examined in this study. However, HPSD technique exhibited a significantly prolonged procedure time (MD 27.42; 95% CI, 19.03 to 35.81). Conversely, no significant differences were observed between the two modalities in terms of total fluoroscopy duration (MD −4.37; 95% CI −10.70 to 1.96) and ablation time (MD 7.95; 95% CI −3.97 to 19.88). Furthermore, HPSD demonstrated significantly higher odds of extrapulmonary vein (PV) trigger ablation compared to CBA (OR 18.86; 95% CI, 5.12–69.49). The subgroup analyses revealed that CBA continued to exhibit superior procedure time (except for the paroxysmal AF subgroup: [MD 29.52; 95% CI −4.25 to 63.60]), while no significant differences in safety and efficacy (except for the HPSD ≥ 70 W subgroup: [OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20–0.97]) outcomes were still observed.Among patients undergoing ablation therapy for AF, both HPSD and CBA demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety profiles; however, HPSD is associated with longer procedural time and higher rates of extra‐PV trigger ablation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hematological indicators of chronic systemic inflammation are significant biomarkers for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP‐NENs). We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the impact of certain factors on the overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and disease‐free survival (DFS) of patients with GEP‐NENs. These factors include the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR), lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR), and C‐reactive protein (CRP) levels. After searching the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from January 1, 2000 to October 20, 2022 and the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference proceedings from January 1, 2017, hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify the origins of heterogeneity and examine the impact of factor grouping. The effects of the cut‐off values and sample size were assessed by meta‐regression. The results revealed that higher NLRs, PLRs, and CRP levels were associated with shorter OS (HR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.55–2.8; HR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.40–2.28; and HR = 2.88, 95% CI = 2.09–3.95, respectively; all p < 0.001). Higher NLRs and lower LMRs were associated with shorter DFS (HR = 3.34, 95% CI = 2.11–5.29 and HR = 2.71, 95% CI = 2.27–3.24, respectively; both p < 0.001). Higher PLRs and CRP levels were correlated with shorter PFS (HR = 3.48, 95% CI = 1.34–9.03, p = 0.01 and HR = 3.14, 95% CI = 1.63–6.08, p = 0.001). As demonstrated in the research, hematological indicators of systemic inflammation are promising biomarkers for GEP‐NEN assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]