治疗急性心力衰竭的血管扩张剂 - 系统回顾与 Meta 分析。

NEJM evidence Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1056/EVIDoa2300335
Jasmin D Lukoschewitz, Kristina C Miger, Anne Sophie O Olesen, Nora O E Caidi, Caroline K Jørgensen, Olav W Nielsen, Christian Hassager, Jens D Hove, Ekim Seven, Jacob E Møller, Janus Christian Jakobsen, Johannes Grand
{"title":"治疗急性心力衰竭的血管扩张剂 - 系统回顾与 Meta 分析。","authors":"Jasmin D Lukoschewitz, Kristina C Miger, Anne Sophie O Olesen, Nora O E Caidi, Caroline K Jørgensen, Olav W Nielsen, Christian Hassager, Jens D Hove, Ekim Seven, Jacob E Møller, Janus Christian Jakobsen, Johannes Grand","doi":"10.1056/EVIDoa2300335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute heart failure is a public health concern. This study systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate vasodilators in acute heart failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search was conducted across the databases of Medline, Embase, Latin American and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria consisted of RCTs that compared vasodilators versus standard care, placebo, or cointerventions. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were serious adverse events (SAEs), tracheal intubation, and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias was assessed in all trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 46 RCTs that enrolled 28,374 patients with acute heart failure. Vasodilators did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.04; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=9.51%; P=0.26). No evidence of a difference was seen in the risk of SAEs (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.05; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=0.94%) or length of hospital stay (mean difference, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.08; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=69.84%). Vasodilator use was associated with a lower risk of tracheal intubation (risk ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.99; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=51.96%) compared with no receipt of vasodilators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this systematic review with meta-analysis of patients with acute heart failure, vasodilators did not reduce all-cause mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":74256,"journal":{"name":"NEJM evidence","volume":"3 6","pages":"EVIDoa2300335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vasodilators for Acute Heart Failure - A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jasmin D Lukoschewitz, Kristina C Miger, Anne Sophie O Olesen, Nora O E Caidi, Caroline K Jørgensen, Olav W Nielsen, Christian Hassager, Jens D Hove, Ekim Seven, Jacob E Møller, Janus Christian Jakobsen, Johannes Grand\",\"doi\":\"10.1056/EVIDoa2300335\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute heart failure is a public health concern. This study systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate vasodilators in acute heart failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search was conducted across the databases of Medline, Embase, Latin American and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria consisted of RCTs that compared vasodilators versus standard care, placebo, or cointerventions. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were serious adverse events (SAEs), tracheal intubation, and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias was assessed in all trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 46 RCTs that enrolled 28,374 patients with acute heart failure. Vasodilators did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.04; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=9.51%; P=0.26). No evidence of a difference was seen in the risk of SAEs (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.05; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=0.94%) or length of hospital stay (mean difference, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.08; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=69.84%). Vasodilator use was associated with a lower risk of tracheal intubation (risk ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.99; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=51.96%) compared with no receipt of vasodilators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this systematic review with meta-analysis of patients with acute heart failure, vasodilators did not reduce all-cause mortality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NEJM evidence\",\"volume\":\"3 6\",\"pages\":\"EVIDoa2300335\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NEJM evidence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2300335\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEJM evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2300335","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:急性心力衰竭是一项公共卫生问题。本研究系统回顾了评估急性心力衰竭血管扩张剂的随机临床试验(RCT):方法:在 Medline、Embase、拉丁美洲和加勒比海健康科学文献、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 对照试验中央登记册等数据库中进行检索。纳入标准包括将血管扩张剂与标准护理、安慰剂或联合干预进行比较的 RCT。主要结果为全因死亡率;次要结果为严重不良事件(SAE)、气管插管和住院时间。对所有试验的偏倚风险进行了评估:研究纳入了46项研究性试验,共招募了28374名急性心力衰竭患者。血管扩张剂并未降低全因死亡风险(风险比为0.95;95%置信区间[CI]为0.87至1.04;I2=9.51%;P=0.26)。没有证据表明SAEs风险(风险比为1.01;95% CI为0.97至1.05;I2=0.94%)或住院时间(平均差异为-0.10;95% CI为-0.28至0.08;I2=69.84%)存在差异。与未使用血管扩张剂相比,使用血管扩张剂与较低的气管插管风险相关(风险比为0.54;95% CI为0.30至0.99;I2=51.96%):在这项针对急性心力衰竭患者的系统综述和荟萃分析中,血管扩张剂并未降低全因死亡率。
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
Vasodilators for Acute Heart Failure - A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Background: Acute heart failure is a public health concern. This study systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate vasodilators in acute heart failure.

Methods: The search was conducted across the databases of Medline, Embase, Latin American and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Inclusion criteria consisted of RCTs that compared vasodilators versus standard care, placebo, or cointerventions. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were serious adverse events (SAEs), tracheal intubation, and length of hospital stay. Risk of bias was assessed in all trials.

Results: The study included 46 RCTs that enrolled 28,374 patients with acute heart failure. Vasodilators did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.04; I2=9.51%; P=0.26). No evidence of a difference was seen in the risk of SAEs (risk ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.05; I2=0.94%) or length of hospital stay (mean difference, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.08; I2=69.84%). Vasodilator use was associated with a lower risk of tracheal intubation (risk ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.99; I2=51.96%) compared with no receipt of vasodilators.

Conclusions: In this systematic review with meta-analysis of patients with acute heart failure, vasodilators did not reduce all-cause mortality.

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
Blood Pressure Targets for Adults with Vasodilatory Shock - An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis. BNC210, an α7 Nicotinic Receptor Modulator, in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. A Meta-Analysis of Levofloxacin for Contacts of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis. Treating Patients, Not P Values. A 50-Year-Old Man with Left-Sided Weakness and Difficulty Speaking Clearly.
×
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