Pattranee Leelapatana

Background: Sleep apnea is one of the most common conditions around the world. This disorder can significantly impact cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Atrial overdrive pacing (AOP) is a treatment modality that can potentially decrease respiratory events. There is currently a lack of evidence to confirm the benefits of AOP. We aimed to assess the impact of AOP in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), central sleep apnea (CSA), and mixed type. Methods: A literature search for studies that reported the impact on apnea–hypopnea index (AHI) by cardiac implantable electronic devices with different pacing modes was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database from inception through July 2020. Pooled standard mean difference with 95%CI was calculated using a random-effects model. Results: Fifteen studies, including thirteen randomized studies and two observational studies containing 440 patients, were identified. The standard mean difference in apnea–hypopnea index of atrial overdrive pacing demonstrated less duration of apnea/hypopnea in patients with atrial overdrive pacing (AOP) (SMD −0.29, 95%CI: −0.48, −0.10, I² = 57%). Additional analysis was performed to assess the effect of atrial overdrive pacing in patients with or without severe sleep apnea syndrome (mean AHI < 30 defined as non-severe). There was no statistically significant difference in standardized mean in AHI in both subgroups between AOP and control groups (SMD −0.25, severe sleep apnea syndrome SMD −0.03, I² = 0.00%). Conclusions: AOP was associated with a statistically significant reduction in AHI, but the magnitude of reduction was small. AOP may potentially be used as an adjunctive treatment with other modalities in treating patients with sleep apnea.

Background: Ranolazine has the potential to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) and plays a role in rhythm control strategy for atrial fibrillation in various clinical settings. However, data on the use of ranolazine in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction are limited. The aims of this meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials are to investigate the efficacy and safety of ranolazine in AF patients with LV systolic dysfunction. PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until July 2020. The efficacy outcomes included the incidence of new-onset AF, the rate of sinus rhythm restoration, and the time until sinus rhythm restoration. Safety endpoints were at death, and any adverse events were reported in the enrolled studies. We initially identified 204 studies and finally retrieved 5 RCTs. Three studies were analyzed in the meta-analysis. Among AF patients with LV systolic dysfunction, our meta-analysis showed that the combination of ranolazine to amiodarone significantly increased the sinus rhythm restoration rate compared to amiodarone alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.48–3.32). Moreover, the time to sinus rhythm restoration was 2.46 h shorter in the ranolazine added to amiodarone group (95% CI: 2.27–2.64). No significant adverse events and proarrhythmias in the ranolazine group were identified. In conclusion, in AF patients with LV systolic dysfunction, ranolazine as an add-on therapy to amiodarone potentiates and accelerates the conversion of AF to sinus rhythm. Moreover, ranolazine shows good safety profiles. Further studies to investigate the effectiveness of ranolazine in the prevention of new-onset AF among patients with LV systolic dysfunction are needed.