首页> 外文期刊>Scientific reports. >Efficacy comparison between cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation for patients with cavotricuspid valve isthmus dependent atrial flutter: a meta-analysis
【24h】

Efficacy comparison between cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation for patients with cavotricuspid valve isthmus dependent atrial flutter: a meta-analysis

机译:冷冻消融术与射频消融术治疗室性三尖瓣峡部依赖型房扑的疗效比较:荟萃分析

获取原文
           

摘要

We perform this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation for patients with cavotricuspid valve isthmus dependent atrial flutter. By searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane electronic databases from March 1986 to September 2014, 7 randomized clinical trials were included. Acute (risk ratio[RR]: 0.93; P =?0.14) and long-term (RR: 0.94; P =?0.08) success rate were slightly lower in cryoablation group than in radiofrequency ablation group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, the fluoroscopy time was nonsignificantly reduced (weighted mean difference[WMD]: ?2.83; P =?0.29), whereas procedure time was significantly longer (WMD: 25.95; P =?0.01) in cryoablation group compared with radiofrequency ablation group. Furthermore, Pain perception during the catheter ablation was substantially less in cryoabaltion group than in radiofrequency ablation group (standardized mean difference[SMD]: ?2.36; P
机译:我们进行这项荟萃分析,比较冷冻消融术与射频消融术对左室瓣膜峡部依赖型房扑患者的疗效和安全性。通过搜索1986年3月至2014年9月的EMBASE,MEDLINE,PubMed和Cochrane电子数据库,纳入了7项随机临床试验。冷冻消融组的急性(风险比[RR]:0.93; P =?0.14)和长期(RR:0.94; P =?0.08)成功率比射频消融组略低,但差异无统计学意义。此外,与射频消融组相比,冷冻消融组的荧光检查时间无明显减少(加权平均差[WMD] :? 2.83; P =?0.29),而手术时间却明显更长(WMD:25.95; P =?0.01)。此外,冷冻消融组的导管消融过程中的痛觉明显低于射频消融组(标准均值[SMD] :? 2.36; P

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号