Objective To assess the safety and effectiveness of direct stenting (DS) versus conventional stenting (CS) with predilation in clinical practice. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2011), CBM, VIP and CNKI were searched from the date of their establishment to April 2011, to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on DS vs. CS. The quality of RCTs was critically appraised, and the data were extracted and cross-checked by two reviewers independently. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.0 software. Results A total of 24 RCTs involving 6 666 patients were included. The results of Meta-analyses showed that DS took shorter operative time compared with CS (MD=–3.36, 95%CI –4.41 to –2.30, Plt;0.000 01) with acute gain (luminal diameter) during operation (MD=–0.01, 95%CI –0.04 to 0.02, P=0.64). But there were no significant differences in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events during six-month follow-up (OR=0.89, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.14, P=0.35) and restenosis (OR=1.02, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.26, P=0.88). Conclusion Current evidence shows that DS is not superior to CS. This conclusion still needs to be further proved by well-designed and large scale RCTs with longer follow-up duration.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of triple antiplatelet therapy (TAT:aspirin, clopidogrel and cilostazol) for patients with coronary heart diseases after percutaneous coronary intervention. MethodsSuch databases as The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2014), PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of TAT for patients with coronary heart diseases after percutaneous coronary intervention from inception to February 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 15 RCTs involved 6 980 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:a) the DAT group (DAT:aspirin and clopidogrel) and the TAT group were similar in non-fatal myocardial infarction (OR=0.72, 95%CI 0.47 to 1.10, P=0.05), stroke (OR=0.66, 95%CI 0.38 to 1.16, P=0.15), and hemorrhage (OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.74 to 1.44, P=0.85) with no significant difference; b) the TAT group was superior to the DAT group in reducing the incidences of the major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (OR=0.50, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.65, P < 0.000 01), cardiac death (OR=0.53, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.84, P=0.007), stent thrombosis (OR=0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.99, P=0.05), target vessel revascularization (OR=0.63, 95%CI 0.51 to 0.76, P < 0.000 01), and target lesion revascularization (OR=0.44, 95%CI 0.28 to 0.70, P=0.000 6); and c) no significant difference was found between the two groups in the incidences of thrombocytopenia, leucopenia, and liver damage. The DAT group was superior to the TAT group in gastrointestinal reaction, palpitations, headache, and skin rashes between the two groups, with significant differences. ConclusionTAT therapy has good efficacy and safety in the treatment of patients with coronary heart diseases after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) -2 inhibitors is a new type of oral sugar-lowering drug. Instead of relying on insulin, it lowers blood sugar by inhibiting the reabsorption of near-curvy tube glucose, which is drained from the urine. SGLT-2 inhibitors not only have a sugar-lowering effect, but also benefit significantly in cardiovascular disease, and this drug has the advantages of permeable diuretic, reducing capacity load, and improving ventricular remodeling. SGLT-2 inhibitors can improve the diastolic function of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events. SGLT-2 inhibitors can benefit patients with HFpEF. Therefore, this article will discuss the progress of SGLT-2 inhibitors in HFpEF.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of bupropion for smoking cessation in smokers with cardiovascular disease. MethodsDatabases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched from inception to February 23rd, 2013. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on bupropion versus placebo for smoking cessation in smokers with cardiovascular disease were included. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1 software. ResultsIn total, 4 studies involving 1 415 patients were finally included. The results of metaanalyses indicated that, compared with placebo, bupropion significantly increased the point prevalence abstinence rate at 3 months (RR=1.79, 95%CI 1.14 to 2.83, P=0.01). However, the point prevalence abstinence rates at 6 months (RR=1.81, 95%CI 0.77 to 4.24, P=0.18) and 12 months (RR=1.46, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.27, P=0.10), and the continuous abstinence rates at 3 months (RR=1.48, 95%CI 0.89 to 2.47, P=0.13), 6 months (RR=1.41, 95%CI 0.79 to 2.51, P=0.25), and 12 months (RR=1.43, 95%CI 0.93 to 2.17, P=0.10) were similar in the two groups. The use of bupropion did not increase all-cause mortality (RR=1.13, 95%CI 0.49 to 2.56, P=0.78) and the incidence of cardiovascular events (RR=1.25, 95%CI 0.95 to 1.64, P=0.11). ConclusionBupropion is safe to use in smokers with cardiovascular disease. Although bupropion could increase the point prevalence abstinence rate at 3 months, it is not effective for long-term smoking cessation. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more large-scale high-quality RCTs are required to verify the aforementioned conclusion.
ObjectivesTo systematically assess the efficacy and safety of nitrates for patients with chronic heart failure. MethodWe searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2016), CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Data to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over studies about nitrates in the treatment of heart failure from inception to January 4th 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsTen trials were included involving 414 patients (195 patients in the nitrates group and 219 patients in the control group). The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with the control group, the nitrates group could reduce arterial blood pressure (MD=-1.91, 95%CI -3.66 to -0.16, P=0.03), pulmonary wedge pressure vessels (PCWP) (MD=-2.00, 95%CI -3.84 to -0.15, P=0.03), increase cardiac index (CI) (MD=0.25, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.42, P=0.003), treadmill exercise time (MD=70.14, 95%CI 55.22 to 85.05, P < 0.000 01); but easily emerge side effects (OR=5.21, 95%CI 2.60 to 10.41, P < 0.000 01). ConclusionCurrent evidence indicates that nitrates treatment could improve the hemodynamic effect, enhance cardiac output and increase exercise tolerance in patients with heart failure.
Objective To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of carvedilol and metoprolol for primary hypertension. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched for relevant studies from inception to December, 2012. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results 7 trials involving 2 243 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the reduction of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate between the carvedilol and metoprolol groups (Pgt;0.05). However, the carvedilol group was superior to the metoprolol group in improving serum triglyceride (MD=0.75, 95%CI 0.45 to 1.04, Plt;0.000 01), serum cholesterol (MD=0.38, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.56, Plt;0.000 1), serum low density lipoprotein (MD=0.59, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.85, Plt;0.000 01), serum high density lipoprotein (MD= –0.09, 95%CI –0.16 to –0.02, P=0.008), and fasting plasma glucose (MD=0.36, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.51, Plt;0.000 01). In addition, the incidence of drug related adverse reaction was significantly lower in the carvedilol group (OR=0.39, 95%CI 0.24 to 0.63, P=0.000 1). Conclusion Based on current evidence, carvedilol tends to have beneficial effects on metabolic parameters and safety profiles, compared with metoprolol.
Objective To systematically review the efficacy and safety of different SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of heart failure. Methods The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed and EMbase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure from inception to July 2, 2021. Two researchers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of the included studies. Network meta-analysis was then performed using Stata 16.0 software. Results A total of 16 randomized controlled trials, including 15 312 patients, involving 5 interventions, namely dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, canagliflozin, sotagliflozin and ertugliflozin were included. Results of network meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the compound outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, all-cause mortality, risk of cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse reactions among patients with heart failure among 5 different SGLT2 inhibitors (P>0.05). Compared with placebo, both selective and non-selective SGLT2 inhibitors improved the risk of hospitalization for heart failure, hospitalization for heart failure, or compound cardiovascular mortality (P<0.05), while only selective SGLT2 inhibitors improved the risk of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and serious adverse events (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between them (P>0.05). The area under the cumulative ordering probability curve of selective and non-selective SGLT2 inhibitors ranked first and second, except for the combined outcome of heart failure or cardiovascular death. Conclusion The current evidence indicates that there is no significant difference in the efficacy and safety of the 5 different SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of heart failure, and there is no significant difference between selective SGLT2 inhibitors and non-selective SGLT2 inhibitors. Due to the limited quantity and quality of included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.