RESUMEN
Cryptogenic stroke refers to a type of ischemic stroke with no identifiable cause despite extensive diagnostic testing. Patent foramen ovale (PFO) treatment modality for the prevention of cryptogenic stroke has been controversial. We undertook this systematic review to compare the efficacy of PFO closure versus medical therapy in preventing recurrent cryptogenic stroke and to provide insight into the most effective treatment modality. Inclusion criteria included patients who had PFO, papers written in English language or had translation available, and papers focusing on medical therapy including drug and surgical treatment for PFO for the prevention of recurrent stroke. Exclusion criteria included articles in which full text could not be obtained and articles in which only one treatment modality was mentioned, either surgical closure or drug therapy. The databases used were PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We conducted a bias assessment through the modified Jadad scale for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and AMSTAR.Ca for meta-analysis and systematic review. The literature search identified a total of 277 papers. After screening, 12 papers were selected for the review. Among these, five were RCTs, five were meta-analyses, one was a systematic review, and one was a systematic review with network meta-analysis. The RCTs included a total of 3,336 participants, while the meta-analyses included 21,813 participants. These finalized papers examined the outcomes of PFO closure compared to medical therapy in preventing recurrent strokes.
RESUMEN
The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril in patients with heart failure. We performed this meta-analysis according to the guidelines reported in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Two independent authors systematically searched online databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception till September 15, 2023. Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular-related hospitalization. A total of nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality was higher in patients receiving enalapril compared to patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (risk ratio [RR]: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.04). Risk of cardiovascular mortality was significantly higher in the enalapril group compared to the sacubitril/valsartan group (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.91). The risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was significantly higher in the enalapril group compared to the sacubitril/valsartan group (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.86). In conclusion, our meta-analysis of nine studies underscores the superior clinical performance of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril in managing patients with heart failure.