首页> 外文期刊>Heart Views: The Official Journal of the Gulf Heart Association >Procedure time comparison between radial versus femoral access in ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing emergent percutaneous coronary intervention: A Meta-analysis of controlled randomized trials
【24h】

Procedure time comparison between radial versus femoral access in ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing emergent percutaneous coronary intervention: A Meta-analysis of controlled randomized trials

机译:急诊经皮冠状动脉介入治疗ST段抬高急性心肌梗死患者radial动脉入路与股骨入路时间比较:随机对照试验的荟萃分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Introduction: There are inconclusive data about the potential delay of procedure time in emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by radial compared with femoral approach in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Aims: The purpose of the current study is to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis of controlled randomized trials (CRTs) comparing the procedure time in STEMI patients undergoing emergent PCI with radial versus femoral access. Methods: Formal search of CRTs through electronic databases (Medline and PubMed) was performed from January 1990 to October 2014 without language restrictions. Mean difference (MD) of procedure time was evaluated as overall effect. Results: Twelve studies were included with 2052 and 2121 patients in radial and femoral group, respectively. Variability in the definition of procedure time was found with unavailability of a precise definition in 41.6% of studies. When all studies were included, no significant longer procedure time in radial approach was detected (MD [95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.6 min [?0.10, 3.3], P = 0.07, P het = 0.56). After deleting RIVAL trial, procedure time was significantly longer in radial group (MD [95% CI] = 1.5 min [0.71, 2.3], P P het = 0.20). Meta-analysis of three studies with similar definition of procedure time showed (MD [95% CI] = 1.26 min [?0.43, 2.95], P = 0.14, P het = 0.85). Conclusions: Although the procedure time in STEMI patients undergoing emergent PCI by radial access is generally comparable with femoral approach, there is an absence of uniformity in its definition, which leads to divergent results. A standardized definition of procedure time is required to elucidate this relevant matter.
机译:简介:对于ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者,通过放射线与股骨入路相比,通过放射状经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)可能会延迟手术时间,尚无定论。目的:本研究的目的是对对照随机试验(CRT)进行全面的荟萃分析,比较接受紧急PCI和PCI动脉入路与股动脉入路的STEMI患者的手术时间。方法:1990年1月至2014年10月,通过电子数据库(Medline和PubMed)对CRT进行了正式搜索,没有语言限制。手术时间的平均差异(MD)被评估为总体效果。结果:radial骨和股骨组分别纳入2052和2121例患者的十二项研究。在41.6%的研究中,发现手术时间定义存在差异,但没有精确定义。当包括所有研究时,没有发现significant骨入路的明显更长的手术时间(MD [95%置信区间[CI] = 1.6分钟[?0.10,3.3],P = 0.07,P het = 0.56)。删除RIVAL试验后,放射治疗组的手术时间明显更长(MD [95%CI] = 1.5分钟[0.71,2.3],P P het = 0.20)。对三项具有相似手术时间定义的研究进行了荟萃分析(MD [95%CI] = 1.26 min [?0.43,2.95],P = 0.14,P het = 0.85)。结论:尽管通过EMI门入路接受PCI的STEMI患者的手术时间通常与股骨入路相当,但其定义缺乏统一性,导致结果分歧。为了阐明此相关问题,需要过程时间的标准化定义。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号