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.
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.