International journal of cardiology
-
Review Meta Analysis
Perioperative levosimendan in cardiac surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Several studies suggested beneficial effects of perioperative levosimendan on postoperative outcome after cardiac surgery. However, three large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been recently published and presented neutral results. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess benefits and harms of perioperative levosimendan therapy in cardiac surgery. ⋯ There is not enough high-quality evidence to neither support nor discourage the systematic use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Perioperative levosimendan in cardiac surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Several studies suggested beneficial effects of perioperative levosimendan on postoperative outcome after cardiac surgery. However, three large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been recently published and presented neutral results. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess benefits and harms of perioperative levosimendan therapy in cardiac surgery. ⋯ There is not enough high-quality evidence to neither support nor discourage the systematic use of levosimendan in cardiac surgery.
-
Review Meta Analysis Comparative Study
Comparison of thoracic endovascular aortic repair, open surgery and best medical treatment for type B aortic dissection: A meta-analysis.
Treatments of type B aortic dissection (TBAD) include thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), best medical treatment (BMT) and open surgery (OS). This meta-analysis was to compare these three strategies to evaluate which provides best outcomes. ⋯ Our study shows that TEVAR may be favorable in long-term outcomes and effectively provide morphologic advantages compared to BMT. However, there is a need for prophylactic measures against stroke in TEVAR. OS seems to be inferior to TEVAR both in short-term and long-term outcomes. Further studies especially randomized clinical trials are needed to comprehensively compare the efficacy between TEVAR and BMT.