Resumo:
En
|
Texto:
En
|
PDF:
En
ABSTRACT Introduction: Ventricular septal rupture is an important high-mortality complication in the scope of myocardial infarctions. The effectiveness of different treatment modalities is still controversial. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of percutaneous closure vs. surgical repair for the treatment of postinfarction ventricular septal rupture (PI-VSR). Methods: A meta-analysis was performed on relevant studies found through PubMed®, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (or CNKI), Wanfang Data, and VIP databases searching. The primary outcome was a comparison of in-hospital mortality between the two treatments, and the secondary outcome was documentation of one-year mortality, postoperative residual shunts, and postoperative cardiac function. Differences were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the relationships between predefined surgical variables and clinical outcomes. Results: Qualified studies (742 patients from 12 trials) were found and investigated for this meta-analysis (459 patients in the surgical repair group, 283 patients in the percutaneous closure group). When comparing surgical repair to percutaneous closure, it was found that the former significantly reduced in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.96, P=0.03) and postoperative residual shunts (OR: 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.10, P<0.00001). Surgical repair also improved postoperative cardiac function overall (OR: 3.89, 95% CI 1.10-13.74, P=0.04). However, there was no statistically significant difference in one-year mortality between the two surgical strategies (OR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.24-1.39, P=0.23). Conclusion: We found that surgical repair appears to be a more effective therapeutic option than percutaneous closure for PI-VSR. Introduction highmortality high infarctions controversial metaanalysis meta analysis vs PIVSR. PIVSR PI VSR . (PI-VSR) Methods PubMed PubMed® Embase Science Library or CNKI, CNKI , CNKI) Data searching inhospital hospital treatments oneyear one year ORs (ORs 95 CIs (CIs outcomes Results 742 (74 1 trials 459 (45 group 28 group. group) OR (OR 067 0 67 0.67 0.480.96, 048096 0.48 0.96, 48 96 0.48-0.96 P=0.03 P003 P 03 003 0.03 0.010.10, 001010 0.01 0.10, 01 10 0.01-0.10 P<0.00001. P000001 P<0.00001 00001 P<0.00001) 389 3 89 3.89 1.1013.74, 1101374 1.10 13.74, 13 74 1.10-13.74 P=0.04. P004 P=0.04 04 P=0.04) However 058 58 0.58 0.241.39, 024139 0.24 1.39, 24 39 0.24-1.39 P=0.23. P023 P=0.23 23 P=0.23) Conclusion VSR. PI-VSR (PI-VSR 9 (7 45 (4 2 06 6 0.6 480 0.480.96 04809 048 0.4 096 0.96 4 0.48-0.9 P=0.0 P00 00 0.0 010 0.010.10 00101 001 0.10 0.01-0.1 P00000 P<0.0000 0000 38 8 3.8 1013 1.1013.74 110137 110 1.1 1374 13.74 7 1.10-13.7 05 5 0.5 241 0.241.39 02413 024 0.2 139 1.39 0.24-1.3 P02 P=0.2 ( 0. 0.480.9 0480 09 0.9 0.48-0. P=0. P0 0.010.1 0010 0.1 0.01-0. P0000 P<0.000 000 3. 101 1.1013.7 11013 11 1. 137 13.7 1.10-13. 0.241.3 0241 02 1.3 0.24-1. 0.480. 0.48-0 P=0 0.010. 0.01-0 P000 P<0.00 1.1013. 1101 13. 1.10-13 0.241. 0.24-1 0.480 0.48- P= 0.010 0.01- P<0.0 1.1013 1.10-1 0.241 0.24- P<0. 1.101 1.10- P<0 P<