Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Curr Probl Cardiol ; 48(12): 101985, 2023 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37479006

ABSTRACT

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is traditionally treated surgically, but isolated transcatheter tricuspid valve repair (ITTVR) offers a less invasive option. This study conducts a meta-analysis and systematic review to evaluate ITTVR outcomes in patients with TR. Database searches until March 2023 identified studies assessing ITTVR safety and efficacy in moderate/severe TR patients. Primary outcomes analyzed were severe TR, NYHA functional class improvement, and 6-minute walking distance. Meta-analyses used Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference with a random effects model. The review included 25 studies with 2421 patients. ITTVR improved NYHA functional class (RR: 3.262), reduced TR severity (RR: 0.303), and enhanced 6-minute walking distance (MD: +47.077 m). Echocardiographic parameters improved, including reductions in TR vena contracta, TR EROA, septolateral tricuspid annular diameter, RVEDD, RV FAC, and TAPSE. LVEF and PASP showed no significant changes. ITTVR improves functional outcomes and echocardiographic parameters in TR patients.


Subject(s)
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency , Humans , Tricuspid Valve/diagnostic imaging , Tricuspid Valve/surgery , Treatment Outcome , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency/surgery , Echocardiography , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects , Severity of Illness Index , Cardiac Catheterization
2.
Curr Probl Cardiol ; 48(7): 101675, 2023 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36870550

ABSTRACT

With the emergence of the largest randomized control trial to date-the Stroke Protection With Sentinel During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (PROTECTED TAVR) study-we sought to conduct an updated meta-analyses to evaluate the utility of CEP devices on both clinical outcomes and neuroimaging parameters. Electronic databases were queried through November 2022 for clinical trials comparing the utility of Cerebral Embolic Protection (CEP) devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) with non-CEP TAVR procedures. Meta-analyses were performed using the generic inverse variance technique, and a random-effects model, and results are presented as weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HR) for dichotomous outcomes. Outcomes of interest included stroke, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, bleeding, mortality, vascular complications, new ischemic lesions, acute kidney injury (AKI), and total lesion volume. Thirteen studies (8 RCTs, 5 observational studies) consisting of 128,471 patients were included in the analysis. Results from our meta-analyses showed a significant reduction in stroke (OR: 0.84 [0.74-0.95]; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%), disabling stroke (OR: 0.37 [0.21-0.67]; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%) and bleeding events (OR: 0.91 [0.83-0.99]; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%) through CEP device use in TAVR. The use of CEP devices had no significant impact on nondisabling stroke (OR: 0.94 [0.65-1.37]; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%), mortality (OR: 0.78 [0.53-1.14]; P < 0.01; I2 = 17%), vascular complications (OR: 0.99 [0.63-1.57]; P < 0.01; I2 = 28%), AKI (OR: 0.78 [0.46-1.32]; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%), new ischemic lesions (MD: -1.72 [-4.01, 0.57]; P < 0.001; I2 = 95%) and total lesion volume (MD: -46.11 [-97.38, 5.16]; P < 0.001; I2 = 81%). The results suggest that CEP device use was associated with a lower risk of disabling stroke and bleeding events in patients undergoing TAVR.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , Aortic Valve Stenosis , Embolic Protection Devices , Stroke , Humans , Treatment Outcome , Stroke/etiology , Stroke/prevention & control , Aortic Valve , Risk Factors
3.
Health Sci Rep ; 6(1): e1071, 2023 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36698706

ABSTRACT

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine side effects have an important role in the hesitancy of the general population toward vaccine administration. Therefore, this study was conducted to document the COVID-19 vaccine side effects in our population. Materials and Methods: An online survey-based, cross-sectional study was carried out from September 1, 2021, to October 1, 2021, to document the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine among the general public. The questionnaire included participants' sociodemographic data, type of vaccine, comorbidities, previous COVID-19 infection, and assessment of side effects reported by them. Results: The majority of the participants were <20 years of age (62.2%), females (74.9%), belonged to the educational sector (58.1%), residents of Sindh (65.7%), and were previously unaffected by COVID-19 infection (73.3%). Sinovac (38.7%) followed by Sinopharm (30.4%) and Moderna (18.4%) were administered more frequently. Commonly reported side effects were injection site pain (82%), myalgia (55%), headache (46%), fatigue/malaise (45%), and fever (41%). Vaccine side effects were more likely to be reported with the first dose as compared to the second dose. On regression analysis, factors associated with occurrence of side effects included younger age (odds ratio [OR]: 6.000 [2.065-17.431], p < 0.001), female gender (OR: 2.373 [1.146-4.914], p = 0.020), marital status (OR: 0.217 [0.085-0.556], p < 0.001), graduate level of education (OR: 0.353 [0.153-0.816], p = 0.015), and occupation being either retired, freelancers, or social workers (OR: 0.310 [0.106-0.909]), p = 0.033). Previous infection with COVID-19 (p = 0.458) and comorbidities were found unrelated (p = 0.707) to the occurrence of side effects. Conclusion: The overall prevalence of local side effects was quite higher than the systemic ones. Further large-scale studies on vaccine safety are required to strengthen public confidence in the vaccination drive.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...