Objective To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) used alone v.s. used in combination on the reversion of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in Chinese essential hypertension (EH) patients. Methods The following databases were searched, including, Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011), PubMed (1980 to 2011), EMbase (1990 to 2011), CBM (1978 to 2011), CNKI (1994 to 2011), VIP (1989 to 2011), and WanFang Data (1998 to 2011). The studies were screened, and the quality was evaluated according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then Meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 10 studies involving 859 patients were included. The results of Meta-analysis showed that the CCBs plus ACEIs group (the combination group) was superior to the CCBs group in improving EH patients’ systolic pressure (SBP) (MD= –6.49, 95%CI –10.55 to –2.43), diastolic pressure (DBP) (MD= –4.48, 95%CI –6.76 to –2.21), left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (MD= –5.31, 95%CI –8.43 to –2.19), interventricular septal thickness (IVST) (MD= –1.33, 95%CI –2.00 to –0.66) and left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPWT) (MD= –0.87, 95%CI –1.41 to –0.33). In addition, compared with the ACEIs group, the combination group was greatly superior in decreasing LVMI (MD= –11.54, 95%CI –15.06 to –8.01), IVST (MD= –0.76, 95%CI –1.25 to –0.27) and LVPWT (MD= –0.80, 95%CI –1.01 to –0.59). But clinical effectiveness was similar between the combination group and the CCBs group or the ACEIs group in aspects of the left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD), fraction shortening (FS) and ejection fractions (EF) (Pgt;0.05). Conclusion The combination therapy of CCBs with ACEIs is superior to either the CCBs or the ACEIsmonothrepy in regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. Because of the low methodological quality and small sample, this conclusion needs to be proved by more high-quality, large-scale and multicenter randomized controlled trials in the future.
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.