Background and Purpose: Several observational studies have compared the effect of the non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants to each other in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, confounding by indication is a major problem when comparing non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant treatments in some of these studies. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety between non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant by only including the propensity score matching studies. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed and Ovid databases until May 2020 to identify relevant observational studies. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs of the reported outcomes were collected and then pooled by a random-effects model complemented with an inverse variance heterogeneity or quality effects model. Results: A total of 17 retrospective cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with dabigatran use, the use of rivaroxaban was significantly associated with increased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.05–1.29]) and major bleeding (HR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.24–1.41]), whereas the use of apixaban was associated with a reduced risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67–0.90]) but not stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.56–1.28]). Compared with rivaroxaban use, the use of apixaban was associated with a decreased risk of major bleeding (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.54–0.73]) but not stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.67–1.04]). Reanalyses with the inverse variance heterogeneity or quality effects model produced similar results as the random-effects model. Conclusions: Current observational comparisons with propensity score matching methods suggest that apixaban might be a better choice compared with dabigatran or rivaroxaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients.

Background:The prognostic significance of blood urea nitrogen (BUN)/creatinine ratio specifically in chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients remained unclear. We aimed to evaluate the association of BUN/creatinine ratio (baseline level and visit-to-visit variation) with the risk of adverse clinical outcomes among patients with chronic HFpEF. Methods and results: This is a secondary analysis of the Treatment of PreservedCardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) trial. Of the enrolled 3445 participants in the TOPCAT trial, associations between BUN/creatinine and clinical outcomes were examined in a subset of 1521 (baseline measurements level) and 1453 (visit-to-visit variation) participants. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the prognostic significance of BUN/creatinine ratio and BUN/creatinine ratio variation for the prespecified clinical outcomes. A higher BUN/creatinine ratio was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.52, 95%CI, 1.21-1.91; p < .001) as well as cardiovascular disease mortality (HR = 1.83, 95%CI, 1.35-2.49; p < .001) in the fully adjusted model. Greater visit-to-visit variability in BUN/creatinine ratio tended to be independently associated with a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization and primary endpoint (p < .001 for both outcomes). Furthermore, those findings were consistent across participants stratified by the presence of chronic kidney disease at baseline.

Background Recent studies have reported the effects of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components on atrial fibrillation (AF), but the results remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between MetS and AF risk. Methods Studies were searched from the Cochrane library, PubMed, and Embase databases through May 2020. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and its corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted and then pooled by using a random effects model. Results A total of 6 observational cohort studies were finally included. In the pooled analysis, MetS was associated with an increased risk of AF (HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.40–1.77; P < 0.01). And the components of MetS including abdominal obesity (HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.36–1.38; P < 0.01), elevated blood pressure (HR 1.56; 95% CI 1.46–1.66; P < 0.01), elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.18; 95% CI 1.15–1.21; P < 0.01) and low high density cholesterol (HDL) (HR 1.18; 95% CI 1.06–1.32; P < 0.01) was also associated with an increased risk of AF, while high triglyceride (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.87–1.11, P = 0.82) was not. Conclusions Our present meta-analysis suggested that MetS, as well as its components including abdominal obesity, elevated blood pressure, elevated fasting glucose and low HDL cholesterol were associated with an increase in the risk of AF.