Suppr超能文献

心脏再同步治疗与左心室辅助装置患者结局的关系:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Cardiac resynchronization therapy and outcomes in patients with left ventricular assist devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 200 Hawkins Dr., Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA.

Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.

出版信息

Heart Fail Rev. 2019 Mar;24(2):229-236. doi: 10.1007/s10741-018-9740-x.

Abstract

The impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on clinical outcome in patients with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is currently not well understood. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis with an intention to summarize all published clinical evidence. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through March 2018 for studies that compared the outcomes in patients with LVAD and CRT. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model, inverse variance method. The between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I. A total of seven studies that included 1157 (575 CRT; 582 non-CRT) patients were identified. Our meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference in the risk of mortality (pooled OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.90-1.63, P = 0.21), ventricular arrhythmia incidence (pooled OR = 1.36, 95% CI 0.99-1.86, P = 0.06), hospitalization (pooled OR = 1.36, 95% CI 0.59-3.14, P = 0.48), or implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies (pooled OR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.51-2.30, P = 0.84) among the CRT group compared with the non-CRT group. There was high heterogeneity with an I of 75% for ICD therapies. Among LVAD patients, CRT combined did not significantly affect mortality, re-hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmia incidence, and ICD therapies.

摘要

心脏再同步治疗(CRT)对持续血流左心室辅助装置(LVAD)患者临床结局的影响目前尚不清楚。我们进行了系统的文献回顾和荟萃分析,旨在总结所有已发表的临床证据。我们通过 2018 年 3 月检索 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 数据库,比较了 LVAD 和 CRT 患者的结局。使用随机效应模型、逆方差法计算汇总优势比(OR)和 95%置信区间(CI)。使用 Q 统计量和 I 评估研究间的异质性。共有 7 项研究纳入了 1157 例(575 例 CRT;582 例非 CRT)患者。我们的荟萃分析并未显示 CRT 组与非 CRT 组之间死亡率(汇总 OR=1.21,95%CI 0.90-1.63,P=0.21)、室性心律失常发生率(汇总 OR=1.36,95%CI 0.99-1.86,P=0.06)、住院率(汇总 OR=1.36,95%CI 0.59-3.14,P=0.48)或植入式心脏复律除颤器治疗(汇总 OR=1.08,95%CI 0.51-2.30,P=0.84)的风险存在显著差异。ICD 治疗的 I 为 75%,存在高度异质性。在 LVAD 患者中,CRT 联合治疗并未显著影响死亡率、再住院率、室性心律失常发生率和 ICD 治疗。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验