{"title":"右心室心肌梗死和不良事件的硝酸盐:叙述性回顾","authors":"M. Wilkinson-Stokes","doi":"10.33151/ajp.18.897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction There is ubiquitous belief that right ventricular myocardial infarction (RVMI) patients are pre-load dependent, and that administering nitrates to this cohort may cause adverse events – most notably hypotension. This article charts a narrative history of RVMI and nitrates: from the initial recognition of RVMI and early support of the use of nitrates, through the spread of the view against nitrates, and to the recent publication of evidence once again supporting their use. Methods Four databases were systematically searched (PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science) and results screened by title, then abstract, and finally full text. Results were presented using a chronological narrative structure. Results The view against the use of nitrates during RVMI can be traced back to a single 1989 cohort study of 28 patients, then later being adopted by a series of influential secondary evidence papers, and ultimately by international guidelines. In 2016, 2017 and 2019, new cohort studies totalling 1046 patients were presented, all of which concluded that nitrates are safe to administer during RVMI. Conclusion This article charts how a single retrospective cohort study with low statistical power came to form the dominant narrative on best practice despite complex and conflicting primary evidence.","PeriodicalId":340334,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Paramedicine","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Right Ventricular Myocardial Infarction and Adverse Events from Nitrates: A Narrative Review\",\"authors\":\"M. Wilkinson-Stokes\",\"doi\":\"10.33151/ajp.18.897\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction There is ubiquitous belief that right ventricular myocardial infarction (RVMI) patients are pre-load dependent, and that administering nitrates to this cohort may cause adverse events – most notably hypotension. This article charts a narrative history of RVMI and nitrates: from the initial recognition of RVMI and early support of the use of nitrates, through the spread of the view against nitrates, and to the recent publication of evidence once again supporting their use. Methods Four databases were systematically searched (PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science) and results screened by title, then abstract, and finally full text. Results were presented using a chronological narrative structure. Results The view against the use of nitrates during RVMI can be traced back to a single 1989 cohort study of 28 patients, then later being adopted by a series of influential secondary evidence papers, and ultimately by international guidelines. In 2016, 2017 and 2019, new cohort studies totalling 1046 patients were presented, all of which concluded that nitrates are safe to administer during RVMI. Conclusion This article charts how a single retrospective cohort study with low statistical power came to form the dominant narrative on best practice despite complex and conflicting primary evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":340334,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Paramedicine\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Paramedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.18.897\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Paramedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.18.897","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
人们普遍认为,右心室心肌梗死(RVMI)患者是负荷前依赖性的,对这一队列患者使用硝酸盐可能会导致不良事件——最明显的是低血压。本文描绘了RVMI和硝酸盐的叙事历史:从最初认识到RVMI和早期支持使用硝酸盐,通过反对硝酸盐观点的传播,以及最近再次支持使用硝酸盐的证据的发表。方法系统检索PubMed、Embase、Medline、Web of Science 4个数据库,按标题筛选、摘要筛选、全文筛选。结果以时间顺序叙述结构呈现。结果反对在RVMI期间使用硝酸盐的观点可以追溯到1989年对28名患者进行的一项队列研究,后来被一系列有影响力的二手证据论文采纳,并最终被国际指南采纳。在2016年、2017年和2019年,共有1046名患者进行了新的队列研究,所有这些研究都得出结论,在RVMI期间施用硝酸盐是安全的。这篇文章描绘了一个具有低统计能力的单一回顾性队列研究如何在复杂和相互矛盾的主要证据的情况下形成最佳实践的主导叙述。
Right Ventricular Myocardial Infarction and Adverse Events from Nitrates: A Narrative Review
Introduction There is ubiquitous belief that right ventricular myocardial infarction (RVMI) patients are pre-load dependent, and that administering nitrates to this cohort may cause adverse events – most notably hypotension. This article charts a narrative history of RVMI and nitrates: from the initial recognition of RVMI and early support of the use of nitrates, through the spread of the view against nitrates, and to the recent publication of evidence once again supporting their use. Methods Four databases were systematically searched (PubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science) and results screened by title, then abstract, and finally full text. Results were presented using a chronological narrative structure. Results The view against the use of nitrates during RVMI can be traced back to a single 1989 cohort study of 28 patients, then later being adopted by a series of influential secondary evidence papers, and ultimately by international guidelines. In 2016, 2017 and 2019, new cohort studies totalling 1046 patients were presented, all of which concluded that nitrates are safe to administer during RVMI. Conclusion This article charts how a single retrospective cohort study with low statistical power came to form the dominant narrative on best practice despite complex and conflicting primary evidence.