Suppr超能文献

经导管主动脉瓣置换术的简化护理与标准护理方法的荟萃分析。

Meta-analysis of minimalist versus standard care approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

机构信息

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.

Department of Internal Medicine, Detroit Medical Centre, Wayne State University, Detroit USA.

出版信息

Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2021 Jun;19(6):565-574. doi: 10.1080/14779072.2021.1920926. Epub 2021 May 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The change in practice of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to a minimalist approach is a debate.

METHODS

Online database search for studies that compared the minimalist approach with the standard approach for TAVR were searched from inception through September 2020. We calculated pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed or random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies with 2,880 TAVR patients (minimalist TAVR;1066 and standard TAVR; 1,814) were included. Compared to standard approach, there were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, or hospital readmissions. However, there was a reduced risk of acute kidney injury (OR0.49;95%CI0.27-0.89), major bleeding (OR0.21;95%CI0.12-0.38) and major vascular complications (OR0.60,95%CI0.39-0.91) associated with the minimalist TAVR group. There was comparatively shorter hospital length of stay (mean difference -2.41;95%CI-2.99,-1.83) days, procedural time (mean difference -43.99;95%CI-67.25,-20.75) minutes, fluoroscopy time (mean difference -2.69;95%CI-3.44,-1.94) minutes and contrast volume (mean difference -26.98;95%CI-42.18,-11.79) ml in the minimalist TAVR group.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated potential benefits of the minimalist TAVR approach over the standard approach regarding some adverse clinical outcomes as well as procedural outcomes without significant differences in mortality or readmission rates.

摘要

背景

经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)实践向微创方法的转变存在争议。

方法

从开始到 2020 年 9 月,在线数据库搜索比较 TAVR 微创方法与标准方法的研究。我们使用固定或随机效应模型计算汇总优势比(OR)和 95%置信区间(CI)。

结果

共纳入 9 项研究,共 2880 例 TAVR 患者(微创 TAVR:1066 例,标准 TAVR:1814 例)。与标准方法相比,微创 TAVR 组的住院死亡率、30 天死亡率或住院再入院率均无显著差异。但是,微创 TAVR 组发生急性肾损伤的风险降低(OR0.49;95%CI0.27-0.89)、大出血(OR0.21;95%CI0.12-0.38)和大血管并发症(OR0.60,95%CI0.39-0.91)的风险较低。微创 TAVR 组的住院时间(平均差-2.41;95%CI-2.99,-1.83)、手术时间(平均差-43.99;95%CI-67.25,-20.75)、透视时间(平均差-2.69;95%CI-3.44,-1.94)和造影剂用量(平均差-26.98;95%CI-42.18,-11.79)均较短。

结论

本荟萃分析表明,微创 TAVR 方法相对于标准方法在某些不良临床结局以及手术结局方面具有潜在优势,而死亡率或再入院率无显著差异。

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