首页> 外文OA文献 >Prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
【2h】

Prognostic value of new-onset right bundle-branch block in acute myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:急性心肌梗死患者新发病右束分支块的预后价值:系统评价和荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and bundle-branch block have poor prognoses. The new European Society of Cardiology guideline suggests a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy when persistent ischemic symptoms occur in patients with persistent ischemic symptoms and right bundle-branch block (RBBB), but the level of evidence is not high. In fact, the presence of RBBB may lead to the misdiagnosis of transmural ischemia and mask the early diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Moreover, new-onset RBBB is occasionally caused by AMI. Our study aims to investigate the prognostic value of new-onset RBBB in AMI. Methods and Results We conducted a meta-analysis of studies to evaluate the prognostic value of RBBB in AMI patients. Of 914 primary records, five studies and 874 MI patients were included for meta-analysis. Compared with previous RBBB, AMI patients with new-onset RBBB had a higher risk of long-term mortality (RR, 1.66, 95% CI [1.31–2.09], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 2), ventricular arrhythmia (RR, 4.86, 95% CI [2.10–11.27], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 3), and cardiogenic shock (RR, 2.76, 95% CI [1.66–4.59], I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.000, n = 3), but a lower risk of heart failure (RR, 0.66, 95% CI [0.52–0.85], I2 = 2.50%, p = 0.001, n = 4). Compared with AMI patients with new-onset permanent RBBB, patients with new-onset transient RBBB had a lower risk of short-term mortality (RR, 0.20, 95% CI [0.11–0.37], I2 = 44.1%, p = 0.000, n = 4). Conclusion New-onset RBBB is likely to increase long-term mortality, ventricular arrhythmia, and cardiogenic shock, but not heart failure in AMI patients. AMI patients with new-onset transient RBBB have a lower risk of short-term mortality than those with new-onset permanent RBBB. Revascularization therapies should be considered when persistent ischemic symptoms occur in patients with RBBB, especially new-onset RBBB.
机译:背景患者急性心肌梗死(AMI)和束分支块具有差的预测。新的欧洲心脏病学指南建议,当持续性缺血症状和右束分支块(RBBB)患者发生持续性缺血症状时,初步经皮冠状动脉干预策略,但证据水平不高。事实上,RBBB的存在可能导致迁移缺血的误诊和掩盖ST升高心肌梗死的早期诊断。此外,偶尔是由AMI引起的新手RBBB。我们的研究旨在调查AMI新手RBBB的预后价值。方法和结果我们对研究进行了荟萃分析,以评估AMI患者中RBBB的预后价值。在914个主要记录中,五项研究和874例MI患者被包括荟萃分析。与先前的RBBB相比,AMI患有新的发病RBBB的患者具有更高的长期死亡风险(RR,1.66,95%CI [1.31-2.09],I2 = 0.0%,P = 0.000,N = 2),心室心律失常(RR,4.86,95%CI [2.10-11.27],I2 = 0.0%,p = 0.000,n = 3)和心绞痛(RR,2.76,95%CI [1.66-4.59],I2 = 0.0% ,p = 0.000,n = 3),但心力衰竭的风险较低(RR,0.66,95%CI [0.52-0.85],I2 = 2.50%,p = 0.001,n = 4)。与新发病永久性RBBB的AMI患者相比,新发病瞬态RBBB的患者具有较低的短期死亡率风险(RR,0.20,95%CI [0.11-0.37],I2 = 44.1%,P = 0.000, n = 4)。结论新发病RBBB可能会增加长期死亡率,心室心律失常和心形成休克,但在AMI患者中不是心力衰竭。 AMI患有新的发病瞬态RBBB的患者的短期死亡风险低于新发病常任永久性RBBB的风险。当RBBB患者发生持续缺血性症状时,应考虑血运重建疗法,特别是新的缺血症状,特别是新的发病RBBB。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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