首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis.
【24h】

Arterial puncture closing devices compared with standard manual compression after cardiac catheterization: systematic review and meta-analysis.

机译:心脏穿刺后的动脉穿刺封闭装置与标准手动加压相比:系统评价和荟萃分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

CONTEXT: Arterial puncture closing devices (APCDs) were developed to replace standard compression at the puncture site and to shorten bed rest following percutaneous coronary intervention. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of APCDs (Angioseal, Vasoseal, Duett, Perclose, Techstar, Prostar) compared with standard manual compression in patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous vascular interventions. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE (1966-January 2003), EMBASE (1989-January 2003), PASCAL (1996-January 2003), BIOSIS (1990-January 2003), and CINHAL (1982-January 2003) databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant articles in any language. STUDY SELECTION: Included randomized controlled trials reporting vascular complications at the puncture site (hematoma, bleeding, arteriovenous fistula, pseudoaneurysm) and efficacy (time to hemostasis, time to ambulation, time to discharge from hospital). DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers abstracted the data independently and in duplicate. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among at least 3 reviewers. The most important criteria were adequacy of allocation concealment, whether the analysis was according to the intention-to-treat principle, and if person assessing the outcome was blinded to intervention group. Random-effects models were used to pool the data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty trials met the selection criteria and included up to 4000 patients. When comparing any APCD with standard compression, the relative risk (RR) of groin hematoma was 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.51; P =.35); bleeding, 1.48 (95% CI, 0.88-2.48; P =.14); developing an arteriovenous fistula, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.23-2.94; P =.77); and developing a pseudoaneurysm at the puncture site, 1.19 (95% CI, 0.75-1.88; P =.46). Time to hemostasis was shorter in the group with APCD compared with standard compression (mean difference, 17 minutes; range, 14-19 minutes), but there was a high degree of heterogeneity among studies. Only 2 studies explicitly reported allocation concealment, blinded outcome assessment, and intention-to-treat analysis. When limiting analyses to only trials that used explicit intention-to-treat approaches, APCDs were associated with a higher risk of hematoma (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.13-3.15) and a higher risk of pseudoaneurysm (RR, 5.40; 95% CI, 1.21-24.5). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this meta-analysis of 30 randomized trials, many of poor methodological quality, there is only marginal evidence that APCDs are effective and there is reason for concern that these devices may increase the risk of hematoma and pseudoaneurysm.
机译:背景:开发了动脉穿刺封闭装置(APCD),以代替穿刺部位的标准加压并缩短经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后的卧床休息时间。目的:评估在接受冠状动脉造影或经皮血管介入治疗的患者中,APCD(Angioseal,Vasoseal,Duett,Perclose,Techstar,Prostar)与标准手动加压相比的安全性和有效性。数据来源:系统检索MEDLINE(1966年1月至2003年1月),EMBASE(1989年1月至2003年1月),PASCAL(1996年1月至2003年1月),BIOSIS(1990年1月至2003年1月)和CINHAL(1982年1月至2003年1月)数据库和将Cochrane对照试验中央登记册中任何语言的相关文章。研究选择:包括报告穿刺部位血管并发症(血肿,出血,动静脉瘘,假性动脉瘤)和疗效(止血时间,走动时间,出院时间)的随机对照试验。数据提取:两位审阅者独立且重复地提取了数据。通过至少3位审阅者之间的讨论解决了分歧。最重要的标准是分配隐藏的充分性,分析是否根据意向性治疗原则以及评估结果的人员是否对干预组不了解。随机效应模型用于汇总数据。数据综合:符合选择标准的30项试验,包括多达4000名患者。将任何APCD与标准加压比较时,腹股沟血肿的相对风险(RR)为1.14(95%置信区间[CI],0.86-1.51; P = .35);出血1.48(95%CI,0.88-2.48; P = .14);发展动静脉瘘,0.83(95%CI,0.23-2.94; P = .77);并在穿刺部位形成1.19的假性动脉瘤(95%CI,0.75-1.88; P = .46)。与标准压迫相比,APCD组的止血时间更短(平均差异为17分钟;范围为14-19分钟),但研究之间存在高度异质性。只有2项研究明确报告了隐瞒分配,盲目评估结局和意向性治疗分析。当将分析仅限于使用明确的意向治疗方法的试验时,APCD与血肿的较高风险(RR,1.89; 95%CI,1.13-3.15)和假性动脉瘤的较高风险(RR,5.40; 95) %CI,1.21-24.5)。结论:基于对30项随机试验的荟萃分析,许多方法学质量较差,仅有少量证据表明APCD有效,并且有理由担心这些装置可能会增加血肿和假性动脉瘤的风险。

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