持续性心房颤动和心力衰竭患者导管消融的短期心功能改变:一项随机对照试验的meta分析

Q. Xiong, Jiaolin Shangguan, G. He, Zhiyu Ling, S. Nazarian, Y. Yin
{"title":"持续性心房颤动和心力衰竭患者导管消融的短期心功能改变:一项随机对照试验的meta分析","authors":"Q. Xiong, Jiaolin Shangguan, G. He, Zhiyu Ling, S. Nazarian, Y. Yin","doi":"10.4172/2155-9880.1000618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The effect of catheter ablation (CA) versus drug therapy on cardiac function improvement is not clear for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure. To compare the short-term therapeutic effects between CA and conventional drug therapy, we conducted a meta-analysis of the current randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective and method: The analyses systematically collected PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing catheter ablation with medical therapy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure. In order to reduce the impact of other factors on cardiac function, we limited the maximum follow-up time to two years. The primary outcome is changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LEVF), second outcomes are changes in 6-minute walk test (6MWT), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Score (MLHFQ), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). SMD was used for the results measured by different methods. Random-effects model or fixed-effects model was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials included 775 patients included in the final analysis, compared with drug therapy, catheter ablation has a better improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (SMD, 0.57; 95% CI [0.40, 0.94], p<0.00001), 6-minute walk distance(MD 23.35, 95% CI [5.51, 41.19], p<0.00001), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Score (MD -11.13, 95% CI [-2.52, -19.75], p=0.01), and B-type natriuretic peptide (110.93, 95% CI [82.84, 139.3], p<0.00001). Conclusion: Catheter ablation has a better improvement than medical treatment in heart function for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure.","PeriodicalId":15504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology","volume":"29 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Short-term Heart Function Change of Catheter Ablation in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials\",\"authors\":\"Q. Xiong, Jiaolin Shangguan, G. He, Zhiyu Ling, S. Nazarian, Y. Yin\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2155-9880.1000618\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The effect of catheter ablation (CA) versus drug therapy on cardiac function improvement is not clear for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure. To compare the short-term therapeutic effects between CA and conventional drug therapy, we conducted a meta-analysis of the current randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective and method: The analyses systematically collected PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing catheter ablation with medical therapy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure. In order to reduce the impact of other factors on cardiac function, we limited the maximum follow-up time to two years. The primary outcome is changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LEVF), second outcomes are changes in 6-minute walk test (6MWT), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Score (MLHFQ), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). SMD was used for the results measured by different methods. Random-effects model or fixed-effects model was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials included 775 patients included in the final analysis, compared with drug therapy, catheter ablation has a better improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (SMD, 0.57; 95% CI [0.40, 0.94], p<0.00001), 6-minute walk distance(MD 23.35, 95% CI [5.51, 41.19], p<0.00001), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Score (MD -11.13, 95% CI [-2.52, -19.75], p=0.01), and B-type natriuretic peptide (110.93, 95% CI [82.84, 139.3], p<0.00001). Conclusion: Catheter ablation has a better improvement than medical treatment in heart function for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9880.1000618\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9880.1000618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对于持续性心房颤动和心力衰竭患者,导管消融(CA)与药物治疗对心功能改善的影响尚不清楚。为了比较CA和常规药物治疗的短期疗效,我们对目前的随机对照试验(rct)进行了荟萃分析。目的和方法:系统收集PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆的rct,比较导管消融与药物治疗对持续性房颤和心力衰竭患者的影响。为了减少其他因素对心功能的影响,我们将最长随访时间限制在两年。主要指标是左室射血分数(LEVF)的变化,第二指标是6分钟步行试验(6MWT)、明尼苏达心力衰竭评分(MLHFQ)、b型利钠肽(BNP)的变化。采用SMD对不同方法测得的结果进行分析。采用随机效应模型或固定效应模型估计相对风险(RRs),置信区间为95%。结果:共纳入6项随机对照试验的775例患者纳入最终分析,与药物治疗相比,导管消融对左室射血分数(SMD, 0.57;95% CI [0.40, 0.94], p<0.00001)、6分钟步行距离(MD = 23.35, 95% CI [5.51, 41.19], p<0.00001)、明尼苏达心力衰竭生存评分(MD = -11.13, 95% CI [-2.52, -19.75], p=0.01)和b型利钠肽(110.93,95% CI [82.84, 139.3], p<0.00001)。结论:导管消融对持续性房颤合并心力衰竭患者心功能的改善效果优于药物治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Short-term Heart Function Change of Catheter Ablation in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Background: The effect of catheter ablation (CA) versus drug therapy on cardiac function improvement is not clear for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure. To compare the short-term therapeutic effects between CA and conventional drug therapy, we conducted a meta-analysis of the current randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective and method: The analyses systematically collected PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing catheter ablation with medical therapy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure. In order to reduce the impact of other factors on cardiac function, we limited the maximum follow-up time to two years. The primary outcome is changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LEVF), second outcomes are changes in 6-minute walk test (6MWT), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Score (MLHFQ), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). SMD was used for the results measured by different methods. Random-effects model or fixed-effects model was used to estimate relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials included 775 patients included in the final analysis, compared with drug therapy, catheter ablation has a better improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (SMD, 0.57; 95% CI [0.40, 0.94], p<0.00001), 6-minute walk distance(MD 23.35, 95% CI [5.51, 41.19], p<0.00001), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Score (MD -11.13, 95% CI [-2.52, -19.75], p=0.01), and B-type natriuretic peptide (110.93, 95% CI [82.84, 139.3], p<0.00001). Conclusion: Catheter ablation has a better improvement than medical treatment in heart function for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信