Suppr超能文献

抗心绞痛药物:系统评价与临床意义。

Anti-anginal drugs: Systematic review and clinical implications.

机构信息

Centro Cardiologico Universitario, University Hospital of Ferrara, Via Aldo Moro 8, 44124 Cona, Ferrara, Italy.

Vita Salute University and San Raffaele Hospital, Via Olgettina Milano, 58-60, 20132 Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Int J Cardiol. 2019 May 15;283:55-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.12.008. Epub 2018 Dec 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The cornerstone of the treatment of patients affected by stable angina is based on drugs administration classified as first (beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, short acting nitrates) or second line treatment (long-acting nitrates, ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine and trimetazidine). However, few data on comparison between different classes of drugs justify that one class of drugs is superior to another.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

i) paper published in English; ii) diagnosis of stable coronary disease; iii) randomized clinical trial; iv) comparison of two anti-angina drugs; v) a sample size >100 patients; vi) a follow-up lasting at least 2 weeks; vii) paper published after 1999, when a meta-analysis of trials comparing beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, and nitrates for stable angina of Heidenreich et al. was published.

OUTCOME

to establish whether the categorization in first and second line antianginal treatment is scientifically supported.

RESULTS

Eleven trials fulfilled inclusion criteria. The results show that there is a paucity of data comparing the efficacy of antianginal agents. The little data available show that there are not compounds superior to others in terms of improvement in exercise test duration, frequency of anginal attacks, need for sub-lingual nitroglycerin.

CONCLUSION

The categorization of antianginal drug in first and second line is not confirmed.

摘要

背景

稳定型心绞痛患者的治疗基石是基于药物治疗,分为一线(β受体阻滞剂、钙通道阻滞剂、短效硝酸酯类)或二线(长效硝酸酯类、伊伐布雷定、尼可地尔、雷诺嗪和曲美他嗪)治疗。然而,关于不同类别的药物之间比较的数据很少,无法证明一类药物优于另一类。

方法

我们按照 PRISMA 指南进行了文献系统评价。

纳入标准

i)发表于英文期刊的文献;ii)稳定型冠状动脉疾病的诊断;iii)随机临床试验;iv)两种抗心绞痛药物的比较;v)样本量>100 例;vi)随访时间至少 2 周;vii)发表于 1999 年之后,此时发表了一篇关于 Heidenreich 等人比较β受体阻滞剂、钙拮抗剂和硝酸酯类治疗稳定型心绞痛的试验的荟萃分析。

结果

有 11 项试验符合纳入标准。结果表明,比较抗心绞痛药物疗效的数据很少。现有的少量数据表明,在改善运动试验持续时间、心绞痛发作频率、舌下含服硝酸甘油需求方面,没有哪种药物优于其他药物。

结论

抗心绞痛药物的一线和二线分类未得到证实。

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