RESUMEN
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic inflammatory condition affecting the gastrointestinal tract, often leading to symptoms like abdominal pain and diarrhea. Given the increasing evidence linking systemic inflammation to atrial fibrillation development, investigating IBD as a potential risk factor for atrial fibrillation becomes imperative. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of atrial fibrillation on inpatient outcomes, resource utilization, and length of hospital stays among IBD patients. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, from the inception of databases to June 5, 2024. Eligible studies included prospective or retrospective studies with definitive diagnoses of ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, or IBD, demonstrating the influence of atrial fibrillation. Data were extracted, and quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis comprised 842,149 IBD patients, with 71,221 having atrial fibrillation. Pooled analysis revealed a significant association between atrial fibrillation and heightened all-cause mortality risk (risk ratio (RR): 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16 to 1.74, p<0.01). However, no significant differences were observed in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, or acute respiratory failure between patients with and without atrial fibrillation. IBD patients with comorbid atrial fibrillation face higher mortality rates, potentially due to systemic inflammation, thromboembolism risks, polypharmacy, and the complexities of managing both conditions concurrently. Early identification and integrated management of atrial fibrillation in IBD patients are crucial to improving outcomes. Larger, multi-center studies are needed to explore the underlying mechanisms and develop tailored treatment strategies.
RESUMEN
This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCABs) compared to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in treating gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, and 11 randomized controlled trials comparing PCABs with PPIs were included. The primary outcome was the healing of erosive esophagitis (EE), with secondary outcomes, including relief of heartburn symptoms and adverse events. The analysis included 11 studies and a pooled sample of 4,108 GERD patients. Results showed that PCABs were significantly more effective in healing EE compared to PPIs (OR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.24-2.24, p<0.01). PCABs also demonstrated a higher rate of complete resolution of heartburn symptoms, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.98-2.09, p=0.06). In terms of safety, there was no significant difference in adverse events between PCABs and PPIs (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.79-1.04, p=0.18), including serious adverse events. The superior efficacy of PCABs can be attributed to their unique pharmacological properties, which allow for more rapid and potent acid suppression compared to PPIs. However, the long-term safety profile of PCABs, particularly newer agents, requires further investigation. The study was limited by the predominance of vonoprazan among the PCABs studied and the focus on patients with EE rather than non-erosive reflux disease. In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that PCABs are more effective than PPIs in treating GERD, particularly in healing EE, while maintaining a comparable safety profile. Future research should focus on evaluating a wider range of PCABs, assessing their efficacy in non-erosive reflux disease, and investigating their long-term safety in GERD management.