Suppr超能文献

老年患者非体外循环与体外循环冠状动脉搭桥手术结局的比较:一项荟萃分析。

Comparison of outcomes between off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in elderly patients: a meta-analysis.

作者信息

Zhu Z G, Xiong W, Ding J L, Chen J, Li Y, Zhou J L, Xu J J

机构信息

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.

Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine, Nanning, China.

出版信息

Braz J Med Biol Res. 2017 Mar 2;50(3):e5711. doi: 10.1590/1414-431X20165711.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to analyze if off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is associated with better treatment outcomes in elderly patients (>70 years of age) than on-pump CABG, using meta-analysis. Medline, PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases were searched until September 13, 2016. Sensitivity and quality assessment were performed. Twenty-two studies, three randomized control trials (RCTs) and 20 non-RCTs were included with 24,127 patients. The risk of death associated with on-pump or off-pump CABG in the RCTs were similar (pooled OR=0.945, 95%CI=0.652 to 1.371, P=0.766). However, in the non-RCTs, mortality risk was lower in patients treated with off-pump CABG than on-pump CABG (pooled OR=0.631, 95%CI=0.587 to 0.944, P=0.003). No differences were observed between the two treatment groups in terms of the occurrence of 30-day post-operative stroke or myocardial infarction (P≥0.147). In the non-RCTs, off-pump CABG treatment was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (pooled standardized difference in means=-0.401, 95%CI=-0.621 to -0.181, P≤0.001). The meta-analysis with pooled data from non-RCTs, but not RCTs, found that mortality was lower with off-pump compared with on-pump CABG, and suggested that there may be some benefit of off-pump CABG compared with on-pump CABG in the risk of mortality and length of hospital stay.

摘要

本研究旨在通过荟萃分析,分析非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)在老年患者(>70岁)中是否比体外循环CABG具有更好的治疗效果。检索了Medline、PubMed、Cochrane和谷歌学术数据库,检索截至2016年9月13日。进行了敏感性和质量评估。纳入了22项研究,其中3项随机对照试验(RCT)和20项非RCT,共24127例患者。RCT中与体外循环或非体外循环CABG相关的死亡风险相似(合并OR=0.945,95%CI=0.652至1.371,P=0.766)。然而,在非RCT中,接受非体外循环CABG治疗的患者的死亡风险低于接受体外循环CABG治疗的患者(合并OR=0.631,95%CI=0.587至0.944,P=0.003)。两个治疗组在术后30天中风或心肌梗死的发生率方面未观察到差异(P≥0.147)。在非RCT中,非体外循环CABG治疗与较短的住院时间相关(合并标准化均值差异=-0.401,95%CI=-0.621至-0.181,P≤0.001)。对非RCT而非RCT的汇总数据进行的荟萃分析发现,与体外循环CABG相比,非体外循环CABG的死亡率更低,并表明在死亡率风险和住院时间方面,非体外循环CABG可能比体外循环CABG有一些益处。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5f76/5378450/47e205063cb5/1414-431X-bjmbr-1414-431X20165711-gf01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验