Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose urokinase plus conventional treatment versus conventional treatment alone in patients with unstable angina. Methods We searched the database PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, SCI, CBM, CNK, VIP and Wanfang database on line by computer, and handsearched relevant professional journals by two independent screening and extract information. The quality of the included documents was evaluated by the criterion of Cochrane handbook 4.2.6. The cochrane collaboration’s Revman 4.2.10 software was used for data analyses. Results A total of 19 randomized controlled trials were included (2 273 patients) Meta-analyses showed that the low-dose urokinase group was better than the conventional treatment group in efficiency [OR= 4.18, 95%CI (3.24, 5.41)] and ECG [OR= 2.81, 95%CI (2.04, 3.88)], and there were no differences between the two groups in cardiovascular outcomes [OR= 0.74, 95%CI (0.44,1.24)], mucocutaneous bleeding [OR= 1.43, 95%CI (0.90, 2.28)], gums bleeding [OR= 1.88, 95%Cl (0.46, 7.70)] and microscopic hematuria [OR= 3.82, 95%CI (0.77, 18.92)]. Conclusion The low dose urokinase group is higher efficient than the conventional treatment group. As the samples of the included studies are small and their quality is low, more randomized, double-blind, high-quality and big- sample trials are required.
Objectives To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of coronary artery drug injection for slow flow/no-reflow phenomenon after coronary stent implantation. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2009), PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang databases from their inception to April 2009. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of the included studies and extracted the data. Meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 5.0 software. Results Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 593 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that urokinase, adenosine, and anisodamine could significantly improve the thrombolysis in myocardial infartion (TIMI) flow. In addition, anisodamine could improve the coronary blood pressure. Urokinase significantly reduced the incidence of malignant ventricular arrhythmias and non-fatal of heart failure during hospitalization, but it could not change the mortality and the incidence of unstable angina, recurrence of myocardial infarction, and ischemic target revascularization. Conclusion Evidence shows that anisodamine, urokinase, urapidil and adenosine can improve TIMI flow and improve myocardial perfusion on the no-reflow patients post coronary stent implantation and urokinase can significantly reduce the incidence of main adverse cardiovascular events. Their clinical application is worthy to be advocated.
Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of nicorandil injection for preventing slow-flow/ no-reflow phenomenon after coronary stent implantation. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2009), PubMed, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang database, etc. from their inception to April 2009. Some relevant journals were handsearched as well. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies and extracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0 software. Results Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 630 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that intracoronary and intravenous nicorandil could reduce the incidence of no-reflow/ low-flow, reduce Corrected TIMI Frame Count (CTFC), and improve left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Intravenous nicorandil could reduce the incidence of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF), pericardial effusion, heart failure, but couldn’t reduce the incidence of death and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) death. Conclusion Evidence shows that intracoronary nicorandil could prevent no-reflow/ slow-flow, reduce CTFC, improve LVEF, and reduce adverse reaction in patients after coronary stent implantation. However, there is a moderate possibility of selection bias, performance bias and publication bias in this review because of the small number of the included studies, which weakens the strength of the evidence of our results. More large sample size, high-quality RCTs are needed.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in left main coronary artery disease. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the efficacy and safety of IVUS and coronary angiography-guided PCI in left main coronary artery disease from inception to March, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies; then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 7 studies involving 7 777 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with PCI guided by coronary angiography, the incidence of cardiac death (OR=0.45, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.61, P<0.000 01), myocardial infarction (OR=0.67, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.84, P=0.004), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR=0.46, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.61, P<0.000 01), total deaths (OR=0.54, 95%CI 0.44 to 0.67, P<0.000 01), and in-stent thrombosis (OR=0.28, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.45, P<0.000 01) occurred in PCI guided by IVUS were lower. The differences were statistically significant. However, there were no statistical significance in the incidence of target revascularization in PCI (OR=0.80, 95%CI 0.40 to 1.61, P=0.54) and revascularization of target lesions (OR=0.68, 95%CI 0.36 to 1.27, P=0.23) between two groups.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that the IVUS-guided PCI can decrease the incidence of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, MACEs, stent thrombosis, total death and has no effect on target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify the above conclusion.