Background Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a rare inherited cardiomyopathy with a high burden of ventricular arrhythmia, which is an important cause of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) is believed to be the most reliable management against SCD. Hypothesis Ventricular arrhythmia does not necessarily confer a poor prognosis in ARVC patients with an ICD. Methods A total of 39 ARVC patients (34 male) implanted with an ICD at our electrophysiology center and followed up continuously were included in this study. The mean age at diagnosis was 42.1 ± 14.8 years. Results Thirty‐three patients (84.6%) had suffered ventricular arrhythmia with hemodynamic compromise before ICD implantation. During a median follow‐up of 48.6 months (interquartile range, 32.3–73.3), 3 patients (7.7%) died, 1 of sudden death, 1 of heart failure, and 1 of cerebral infarction. Twenty‐eight patients (71.8%) experienced 540 appropriate ICD interventions. The first appropriate ICD intervention occurred more than 2 years after initial ICD implantation in 5 patients (12.8%). Twelve patients (30.8%) suffered from electrical storm. The event‐free period was significantly shorter in patients who did not have broad precordial T wave inversion ≥V1–V3 (hazard ratio = 0.39, 95% confidence interval: 0.16‐0.96). No significant difference was shown in antiarrhythmic drugs and radiofrequency catheter ablation before ICD implantation between patients with and without appropriate ICD therapies (P > 0.05). Conclusions Recurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation is frequent in high‐risk patients with ARVC. The prognosis is favorable for ARVC patients treated with an ICD for prevention of SCD.

ES is not rare in ARVC patients with an ICD for prevention of SCD, but it does not independently confer increased mortality. Intravenous amiodarone is effective in management of ES when VT/VF repeatedly occurred.

BackgroundDepression is a possible influence factor for the increased risk of incident atrial fibrillation (AF). Although several investigations have assessed their association, the results are still controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the association between depression or using antidepressants and AF.MethodsWe systemically performed the literature retrieval from two electronic databases PubMed and EMBASE until March 2022 to extract relevant data. The hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (OR) from included studies with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adjusted into the risk ratio (RR) and pooled by using the random-effects model.ResultsTotally 9 studies about the associations between depression or antidepressants and incident AF risk were included in this meta-analysis. Among them, 5 studies specifically analyzed the impact of antidepressants on the risk of AF. The outcomes of our analysis indicated that depression or depressive symptoms could increase AF risk (RR = 1.15, 95% CI, 1.03–1.27, P < 0.01). In addition, the use of antidepressants can also increase AF risk (RR = 1.16, 95% CI, 1.07–1.25, P < 0.001). These results remained unchanged when we remove the source of heterogeneity or adjust the analysis model into the fixed-effects model.ConclusionsBased on existing investigations, both depression and the use of antidepressants are closely related to the increase of incident AF risk.

BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend the utilization of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the optimal anticoagulation strategy for AF patients with bioprosthetic heart valves (BPHV) remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to explore the effect of DOACs versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in this population.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases until November 2021 for studies reporting the effect of DOACs versus VKAs in AF patients with BPHV. Adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using the random-effects model with an inverse variance method.ResultsWe selected four randomized clinical trials and seven observational studies (2236 DOAC- and 6403 VKAs-users). Regarding the effectiveness outcomes, there were no significant differences between DOACs and VKAs in stroke or systemic embolism (RR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.50–1.08), ischemic stroke (RR = 1.08, 95%CI: 0.76–1.55), all-cause death (RR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.86–1.12), and cardiovascular death (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.40–1.80). In terms of the safety outcomes, DOACs was associated with lower risks of major bleeding (RR = 0.70, 95%CI: 0.59–0.82) and intracranial bleeding (RR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.26–0.70), but the risks of any bleeding (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.65–1.13) and gastrointestinal bleeding (RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.73–1.17) are not significantly different when compared with VKAs. The subgroup analysis with follow-up as a covariate revealed that the DOACs had lower risks of SSE (RR = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.37–0.94) and major bleeding (RR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.58–0.81) in patients with a mean follow-up of more than 24 months, but no statistical differences were found in patients with the follow-up less than 24 months (SSE: RR = 1.10, 95%CI: 0.92–1.32; major bleeding: RR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.42–2.01).ConclusionsIn AF with BPHV, patients on DOACs experienced a reduced risk of major bleeding and intracranial bleeding compared with VKAs, while the risks of stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality were similar.

BackgroundSeveral studies have investigated the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in Latin American patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but the results remain controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs vs. warfarin in Latin American patients with AF.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases until November 2021 for studies that compared the effect of DOACs vs. warfarin in Latin patients with AF. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were pooled by a random-effects model using an inverse variance method.ResultsFour post-hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving 42,411 DOACs and 29,270 warfarin users were included. In Latin American patients with AF, for the effectiveness outcomes, the use of DOACs compared with warfarin was significantly associated with decreased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) (HR = 0.78; 95%CI.64–0.96), stroke (HR = 0.75; 95%CI.57–0.99), hemorrhagic stroke (HR = 0.14; 95%CI.05–0.36), all-cause death (HR = 0.89; 95% CI.80–1.00), but not ischemic stroke and cardiovascular death. For the safety outcomes, compared with warfarin, the use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of major or non-major clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding (HR = 0.70; 95% CI.57–0.86), major bleeding (HR = 0.70; 95%CI.53–0.92), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) (HR = 0.42; 95%CI.24–0.74), or any bleeding (HR = 0.70;95% CI.62–0.78), but not gastrointestinal bleeding. In non-Latin American patients with AF, for the effectiveness outcomes, the use of DOACs compared with warfarin was significantly associated with decreased risks of SSE (HR = 0.87; 95%CI.75–1.00), hemorrhagic stroke (HR = 0.41; 95%CI.28–0.60), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.87; 95% CI.81–0.94), all-cause death (HR = 0.90; 95% CI.85–0.94). Conversely, the risk of myocardial infarction increased (HR = 1.34; 95% CI 1.13–1.60), but not ischemic stroke. For the safety outcomes, compared with warfarin, the use of DOACs was associated with reduced risks of major or NMCR bleeding (HR = 0.75; 95%CI.61–0.92), major bleeding (HR = 0.76; 95%CI.63–0.92), ICH (HR = 0.42; 95%CI.36–0.52), and any bleeding (HR = 0.81; 95% CI.71–0.92), but not gastrointestinal bleeding.ConclusionCurrent pooled data from the four post-hoc analyses of RCTs suggested that compared with warfarin, DOACs appeared to have significant reductions in SSE, stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, major or NMCR bleeding, major bleeding, ICH, and any bleeding, but comparable risks of ischemic stroke, cardiovascular death, and gastrointestinal bleeding in Latin American patients with AF. DOACs appeared to have significant reductions in SSE, hemorrhagic stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, major or NMCR bleeding, major bleeding, ICH, and any bleeding, and increased the risk of myocardial infarction, but comparable risks of stroke, ischemic stroke, and gastrointestinal bleeding in non-Latin American patients with AF.