透明与压力敷料预防心导管穿刺后疼痛、不适和血肿的疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析

Journal of Caring Sciences Pub Date : 2021-05-24 eCollection Date: 2021-05-01 DOI:10.34172/jcs.2021.019
Suresh K Sharma, Kalpana Thakur, Shiv K Mudgal, Barun Kumar
{"title":"透明与压力敷料预防心导管穿刺后疼痛、不适和血肿的疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Suresh K Sharma,&nbsp;Kalpana Thakur,&nbsp;Shiv K Mudgal,&nbsp;Barun Kumar","doi":"10.34172/jcs.2021.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> There is lack consensus on superiority of transparent vs. pressure dressing for prevention of post-cardiac catheterization pain, discomfort and hematoma. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of available RCTs on this subject. <b>Methods:</b> We performed a systematic search of RCTs published between in 2000-2019 in English language using databases including PubMed Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERMED Journals, Clinical trials database, DELNET, Google Scholar and Discovery Search. Studies conducted on adult patients with femoral dressing after cardiac catheterization measuring pain, discomfort, hematoma as intended outcomes have been included. Data extraction, critical appraisal, assessment of risk bias was done and decisions on quality were made on mutual consensus. Mantel-Haenszel (MH) and odds ratio for dichotomous variables was calculated by Review Manager 5.3 software. <b>Results:</b> Out of all identified studies, only 5 studies comprising 664 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and met the quality assessment. Incidence of discomfort (25, 333) were significantly less in transparent dressing group as compared to pressure dressing group (149, 331); odds ratio 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.15; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, P= 0.00. Four studies reported significantly lower number of pain cases in transparent dressing (17, 203) as compared to pressure dressing (57, 201); odds ratio 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.59; I<sup>2</sup> = 47%, P= 0.01). However, incidence of hematoma did not reveal any significant difference between two groups. <b>Conclusion:</b> Transparent dressing is a better option in patients with femoral/groin dressing after cardiac catheterization as it is more effective in prevention of pain and discomfort.</p>","PeriodicalId":15317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Caring Sciences","volume":"10 2","pages":"103-110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/95/95/jcs-10-103.PMC8242292.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of Transparent vs. Pressure Dressing in Prevention of Post-Cardiac Catheterization Pain, Discomfort and Hematoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of RCTs.\",\"authors\":\"Suresh K Sharma,&nbsp;Kalpana Thakur,&nbsp;Shiv K Mudgal,&nbsp;Barun Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/jcs.2021.019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> There is lack consensus on superiority of transparent vs. pressure dressing for prevention of post-cardiac catheterization pain, discomfort and hematoma. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of available RCTs on this subject. <b>Methods:</b> We performed a systematic search of RCTs published between in 2000-2019 in English language using databases including PubMed Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERMED Journals, Clinical trials database, DELNET, Google Scholar and Discovery Search. Studies conducted on adult patients with femoral dressing after cardiac catheterization measuring pain, discomfort, hematoma as intended outcomes have been included. Data extraction, critical appraisal, assessment of risk bias was done and decisions on quality were made on mutual consensus. Mantel-Haenszel (MH) and odds ratio for dichotomous variables was calculated by Review Manager 5.3 software. <b>Results:</b> Out of all identified studies, only 5 studies comprising 664 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and met the quality assessment. Incidence of discomfort (25, 333) were significantly less in transparent dressing group as compared to pressure dressing group (149, 331); odds ratio 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.15; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, P= 0.00. Four studies reported significantly lower number of pain cases in transparent dressing (17, 203) as compared to pressure dressing (57, 201); odds ratio 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.59; I<sup>2</sup> = 47%, P= 0.01). However, incidence of hematoma did not reveal any significant difference between two groups. <b>Conclusion:</b> Transparent dressing is a better option in patients with femoral/groin dressing after cardiac catheterization as it is more effective in prevention of pain and discomfort.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Caring Sciences\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"103-110\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/95/95/jcs-10-103.PMC8242292.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Caring Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/jcs.2021.019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/5/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Caring Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/jcs.2021.019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:透明敷料与压力敷料在预防心导管术后疼痛、不适和血肿方面的优势缺乏共识。因此,我们对该主题的现有随机对照试验进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法:我们使用PubMed Medline、EMBASE、CINAHL、Cochrane Library、ERMED Journals、临床试验数据库、DELNET、Google Scholar和Discovery search等数据库对2000-2019年发表的英文rct进行系统检索。对心导管置入术后股骨敷料的成年患者进行的研究测量了预期结果的疼痛、不适和血肿。进行了数据提取、关键评估、风险偏差评估,并在相互协商一致的基础上作出质量决定。采用Review Manager 5.3软件计算二分变量的Mantel-Haenszel (MH)和比值比。结果:在所有纳入的研究中,只有5项研究(664例患者)符合纳入标准并满足质量评价。透明敷料组不适发生率(25,333)明显低于压力敷料组(149,331);优势比0.10,95%可信区间[CI] 0.06-0.15;I2 = 0%, p = 0.00。四项研究报告,与压力敷料(57,201)相比,透明敷料(17,203)的疼痛病例明显减少;优势比0.13,95%可信区间[CI] 0.03-0.59;I2 = 47%, p = 0.01)。两组血肿发生率无明显差异。结论:透明敷料是心导管术后股骨/腹股沟敷料的较好选择,能更有效地预防疼痛和不适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Efficacy of Transparent vs. Pressure Dressing in Prevention of Post-Cardiac Catheterization Pain, Discomfort and Hematoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of RCTs.

Efficacy of Transparent vs. Pressure Dressing in Prevention of Post-Cardiac Catheterization Pain, Discomfort and Hematoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of RCTs.

Efficacy of Transparent vs. Pressure Dressing in Prevention of Post-Cardiac Catheterization Pain, Discomfort and Hematoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of RCTs.

Efficacy of Transparent vs. Pressure Dressing in Prevention of Post-Cardiac Catheterization Pain, Discomfort and Hematoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of RCTs.

Introduction: There is lack consensus on superiority of transparent vs. pressure dressing for prevention of post-cardiac catheterization pain, discomfort and hematoma. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of available RCTs on this subject. Methods: We performed a systematic search of RCTs published between in 2000-2019 in English language using databases including PubMed Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERMED Journals, Clinical trials database, DELNET, Google Scholar and Discovery Search. Studies conducted on adult patients with femoral dressing after cardiac catheterization measuring pain, discomfort, hematoma as intended outcomes have been included. Data extraction, critical appraisal, assessment of risk bias was done and decisions on quality were made on mutual consensus. Mantel-Haenszel (MH) and odds ratio for dichotomous variables was calculated by Review Manager 5.3 software. Results: Out of all identified studies, only 5 studies comprising 664 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and met the quality assessment. Incidence of discomfort (25, 333) were significantly less in transparent dressing group as compared to pressure dressing group (149, 331); odds ratio 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.15; I2 = 0%, P= 0.00. Four studies reported significantly lower number of pain cases in transparent dressing (17, 203) as compared to pressure dressing (57, 201); odds ratio 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.59; I2 = 47%, P= 0.01). However, incidence of hematoma did not reveal any significant difference between two groups. Conclusion: Transparent dressing is a better option in patients with femoral/groin dressing after cardiac catheterization as it is more effective in prevention of pain and discomfort.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信