有肾脏疾病的冠状动脉疾病 (CAD) 患者接受冠状动脉旁路移植术 (CABG) 与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗 (PCI) 后的临床疗效比较:系统回顾

Dhiya Putri Aqilah Sandha, Yanto Sandy Tjang, Tri Faranita, Karina Karina
{"title":"有肾脏疾病的冠状动脉疾病 (CAD) 患者接受冠状动脉旁路移植术 (CABG) 与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗 (PCI) 后的临床疗效比较:系统回顾","authors":"Dhiya Putri Aqilah Sandha, Yanto Sandy Tjang, Tri Faranita, Karina Karina","doi":"10.46799/jhs.v5i2.1222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to data from the WHO, heart disease continues to be the top cause of mortality worldwide. The 2018 Riskesdas shows that the prevalence of heart disease, including CAD, based on doctors' diagnoses in Indonesia is 1,5%. Management measures in CAD patients are CABG or PCI. The research design used in this study was a literature review using a systematic review method. A systematic literature review comparing CABG and PCI costs is needed to determine optimal therapeutic options in CAD patients. For articles published during the last ten years, a literature search was done using four databases: PubMed, SagePub, Google Scholar, and Science Direct. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2020 protocol, a literature review was conducted. Eight texts in all met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. Five literatures stating that CABG is better, two other literatures stating that there is no significant post-rehabilitation difference between CABG and PCI, and one literature stating that PCI has better survival after 5 years in CAD patients with impaired renal function. CABG is considered more effective and is recommended as the primary treatment option in CAD patients with a kidney disorder. Nevertheless, PCI can be utilized as an alternate therapy in CAD patients when kidney function and concomitant illnesses are considered.","PeriodicalId":431769,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Health Sains","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Clinical Outcomes After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) Patients With Kidney Disorders: Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Dhiya Putri Aqilah Sandha, Yanto Sandy Tjang, Tri Faranita, Karina Karina\",\"doi\":\"10.46799/jhs.v5i2.1222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"According to data from the WHO, heart disease continues to be the top cause of mortality worldwide. The 2018 Riskesdas shows that the prevalence of heart disease, including CAD, based on doctors' diagnoses in Indonesia is 1,5%. Management measures in CAD patients are CABG or PCI. The research design used in this study was a literature review using a systematic review method. A systematic literature review comparing CABG and PCI costs is needed to determine optimal therapeutic options in CAD patients. For articles published during the last ten years, a literature search was done using four databases: PubMed, SagePub, Google Scholar, and Science Direct. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2020 protocol, a literature review was conducted. Eight texts in all met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. Five literatures stating that CABG is better, two other literatures stating that there is no significant post-rehabilitation difference between CABG and PCI, and one literature stating that PCI has better survival after 5 years in CAD patients with impaired renal function. CABG is considered more effective and is recommended as the primary treatment option in CAD patients with a kidney disorder. Nevertheless, PCI can be utilized as an alternate therapy in CAD patients when kidney function and concomitant illnesses are considered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":431769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Health Sains\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Health Sains\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46799/jhs.v5i2.1222\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Health Sains","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46799/jhs.v5i2.1222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据世卫组织的数据,心脏病仍然是导致全球死亡的首要原因。2018 年的 Riskesdas 报告显示,根据医生的诊断,印尼心脏病(包括 CAD)的发病率为 1.5%。对 CAD 患者的管理措施是 CABG 或 PCI。本研究采用的研究设计是系统性文献综述法。需要对 CABG 和 PCI 的费用进行系统的文献综述比较,以确定对 CAD 患者的最佳治疗方案。我们使用四个数据库对过去十年间发表的文章进行了文献检索:PubMed、SagePub、Google Scholar 和 Science Direct。根据《2020 年系统综述和元分析首选报告项目协议》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocol,PRISMA-P),进行了文献综述。共有 8 篇文献符合研究的纳入和排除标准。其中 5 篇文献指出 CABG 更好,另外 2 篇文献指出 CABG 和 PCI 在康复后没有显著差异,1 篇文献指出对于肾功能受损的 CAD 患者,PCI 在 5 年后的存活率更高。CABG 被认为更有效,并被推荐为肾功能不全的 CAD 患者的主要治疗方案。不过,如果考虑到肾功能和并发症,PCI 可作为 CAD 患者的替代疗法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) Patients With Kidney Disorders: Systematic Review
According to data from the WHO, heart disease continues to be the top cause of mortality worldwide. The 2018 Riskesdas shows that the prevalence of heart disease, including CAD, based on doctors' diagnoses in Indonesia is 1,5%. Management measures in CAD patients are CABG or PCI. The research design used in this study was a literature review using a systematic review method. A systematic literature review comparing CABG and PCI costs is needed to determine optimal therapeutic options in CAD patients. For articles published during the last ten years, a literature search was done using four databases: PubMed, SagePub, Google Scholar, and Science Direct. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2020 protocol, a literature review was conducted. Eight texts in all met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. Five literatures stating that CABG is better, two other literatures stating that there is no significant post-rehabilitation difference between CABG and PCI, and one literature stating that PCI has better survival after 5 years in CAD patients with impaired renal function. CABG is considered more effective and is recommended as the primary treatment option in CAD patients with a kidney disorder. Nevertheless, PCI can be utilized as an alternate therapy in CAD patients when kidney function and concomitant illnesses are considered.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Relationship Between Nurse Burnout and Patient Safety Culture with The Quality of Nursing Care in Type B Hospitals in Central Sulawesi The Effect of Animated Video Learning on ESI Triage Knowledge and Student Satisfaction of Nursing Polytechnic Health Ministry of Health Makassar Experience of Breastfeeding And Exclusive Breastfeeding For Women With Physical Disabilities: Scoping Review Comparison of Sensitivity, Specificity, and Accuracy of ISS, RTS, and TRISS Instruments in Predicting Mortality of Trauma Patients Differences Between Discovery Learning And Case-Based Learning Using Animated Videos On Critical Thinking Skills In Start Triage Among Undergraduate Nursing Students
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1