Backgrounds. Manual compression (MC) and vascular closure device (VCD) are two methods of vascular access site hemostasis after cardiac interventional procedures. However, there is still controversial over the use of them and a lack of comprehensive and systematic meta-analysis on this issue. Methods. Original articles comparing VCD and MC in cardiac interventional procedures were searched in PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through April 2022. Efficacy, safety, patient satisfaction, and other parameters were assessed between two groups. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated by I2 index and the Cochran Q test, respectively. Publication bias was assessed using the funnel plot and Egger’s test. Results. A total of 32 studies were included after screening with inclusion and exclusion criteria (33481 patients). This meta-analysis found that VCD resulted in shorter time to hemostasis, ambulation, and discharge ( p < 0.00001 ). In terms of vascular complication risks, VCD group might be associated with a lower risk of major complications ( p = 0.0001 ), but the analysis limited to randomized controlled trials did not support this result ( p = 0.68 ). There was no significant difference in total complication rates ( p = 0.08 ) and bleeding-related complication rates ( p = 0.05 ) between the two groups. Patient satisfaction was higher in VCD group ( p = 0.002 ). Meta-regression analysis revealed no specific covariate as an influencing factor for above results ( p > 0.05 ). Conclusions. Compared with MC, the use of VCDs significantly shortens the time of hemostasis and allows earlier ambulation and discharge, meanwhile without increase in vascular complications. In addition, use of VCDs achieves higher patient satisfaction and leads cost savings for patients and institutions.

BackgroundContact force (CF) and related parameters have been evaluated as an effective guide mark for pulmonary vein isolation, yet not for linear ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) dependent atrial flutter (AFL). We thus studied the efficacy and safety of CF related parameter-guided ablation for CTI-AFL.MethodsSystematic search was performed on databases involving PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (through June 2022). Original articles comparing CF related parameter-guided ablation and conventional parameter-guided ablation for CTI-AFL were included. One-by-one elimination, subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used for heterogeneity test between studies.ResultsTen studies reporting on 761 patients were identified after screening with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Radiofrequency (RF) duration was significantly shorter in CF related parameter-guided group (p = 0.01), while procedural time (p = 0.13) and fluoroscopy time (p = 0.07) were no significant difference between two groups. CF related parameter-guided group had less RF lesions (p = 0.0003) and greater CF of catheter-tissue (p = 0.0002). Touch-up needed after first ablation line was less in CF related parameter-guided group (p = 0.004). In addition, there were no statistical significance between two groups on acute conduction recovery rates (p = 0.25), recurrence rates (p = 0.92), and complication rates (p = 0.80). Meta-regression analysis revealed no specific covariate as an influencing factor for above results (p &gt; 0.10).ConclusionCF related parameters guidance improves the efficiency of CTI ablation, with the better catheter-tissue contact, the lower RF duration and the comparable safety as compared with conventional method, but does not improve the acute success rate and long-term outcome.

Background. Catheter ablation has become a widely applied intervention for treating symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), which can be performed under general anesthesia (GA), deep sedation, or conscious sedation (CS). But the strategy of anesthesia remains controversial. Objectives. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the advantages of GA/deep sedation and CS in AF catheter ablation, including procedural parameters and clinical outcomes. Methods. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to November 2021 for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that assessed the outcomes of catheter ablation under GA/deep sedation or CS. Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis after screening with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated by the I2 index and the Cochran Q test, respectively; sensitivity analysis including meta-regression was performed if heterogeneity was high. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger’ test. Results. This meta-analysis found GA/deep sedation to be associated with a lower recurrence rate of AF catheter ablation ( p = 0.03 ). In terms of procedural parameters, there was no significant difference between the two groups for the procedural time ( p = 0.35 ) and the fluoroscopy time ( p = 0.60 ), while the ablation time was shorter in the GA/deep sedation group ( p = 0.008 ). The total complication rate and the incidence of serious adverse events were statistically insignificant between the two groups ( p = 0.07 and p = 0.94 ). Meta-regression did not suggest any covariates as an influential factor for procedural parameters and clinical outcomes. Conclusion. GA/deep sedation may reduce the risk of recurrence after AF ablation without increasing the incidence of complications. GA/deep sedation shortens the ablation duration, although there is no statistical difference in other procedural parameters between GA/deep sedation and CS.