Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Cureus ; 15(9): e45086, 2023 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37842352

ABSTRACT

Pacemakers have been accessible for six decades, and clearly defined criteria for pacemaker implantation have been established. Within the contemporary clinical practice, two dependable pacing platforms exist leadless pacemakers and transvenous pacemakers. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety of leadless pacemakers to transvenous pacemakers. This meta-analysis adhered to the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 framework. A comprehensive and systematic search was conducted across various databases including Scopus, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE, spanning from inception to August 15, 2023. The primary outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis were total complications, all-cause mortality, and device-related complications. Furthermore, secondary outcomes evaluated encompassed the need for reintervention, occurrences of pneumothorax, pericardial effusion, endocarditis, hemothorax, and hematoma. Total 17 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The findings of this study showed that patients with leadless pacemakers had a lower risk of total complications, device-related complications, pneumothorax, and endocarditis. The risk of reintervention was significantly lower in the leadless pacemaker group. However, compared to a transvenous pacemaker, the risk of pericardial effusion was significantly higher in the leadless pacemaker group. It is important to acknowledge the limitations arising from the lack of extensive long-term follow-up data for leadless pacemakers. As technology evolves, continued research will be essential in uncovering the full spectrum of prolonged complications associated with these devices.

2.
Cureus ; 15(7): e41711, 2023 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37575705

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) and solvent-based PTX (sb-PTX) as treatment options for advanced gastric cancer. This meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We carried out a comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE from inception to June 15, 2023. The search strategy included the following keywords: "Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel," "solvent-based paclitaxel," and "advanced gastric cancer," along with their synonyms and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms. In this meta-analysis, the primary outcome was the comparison of overall survival and progression-free survival between the two groups. For safety purposes, we compared the risk of hematological and non-hematological events between the two groups. Four studies were included in this meta-analysis enrolling 1052 patients (483 received nb-PTX and 569 received sb-PTX). In terms of efficacy, nab-PTX showed favorable trends in overall survival and progression-free survival, despite no statistically significant differences being reported. The subgroup meta-analysis showed that nab-PTX seemed to have a better effect on peritoneal metastasis compared to sb-PTX. Regarding safety, the number of patients with neutropenia and leucopenia was significantly higher in the nab-PTX group compared to the sb-PTX group. However, the difference was statistically insignificant. Future research should focus on conducting more robust studies to further validate these findings and establish a stronger evidence base for the use of nab-PTX in this patient population.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...