RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: One million individuals in the USA die from acute myocardial infarction (MI), which currently affects 3 million people globally. The available data about the early and late outcomes of both biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) and durable polymer drug-eluting stents exhibit inconsistency. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of BP-DES with DP-DES. METHODS: PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Clinical Trials.gov databases were used to find out studies comparing BP-DES to DP-DES. All the analyses used the random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were incorporated in this meta-analysis that involved 28,874 patients, out of which 11,997 received the BP Stent, and the rest of 16,578 received the DP stent. Thorough analyses revealed that the risk of all-cause death was significantly higher in the BP-DES group (5.4% vs 2.7%) (RR 1.22, p 0.02) for two years or less than two-year follow-up. For studies with more than two years of follow-up, all-cause death was 9.07% (599/6603) in BP-DES and 9.47% (531/5602) in the DP-DES group but failed to achieve statistically significant levels (RR 0.97, p 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed no clinically significant (P value was > 0.05) differences in all-cause death, cardiac death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), late stent thrombosis, device-oriented composite endpoint/target lesion failure (DOCE/TLF), myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR), target vessel infarction (TVI) between BP-DES and DP-DES for more than two years of follow-up. Additionally, all-cause death was only outcomes which found to have a statistically significant difference for less than two years of follow-up, while remaining were statistically non-significant.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Propofol has been the gold standard for anesthesia induction and maintenance due to its rapid onset and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. However, the search for alternative agents with improved safety and efficacy has led to the emergence of ciprofol (HSK3486), a structural analog of propofol. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared to propofol for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgical procedures. METHODS: This study included only double-arm RCTs in which participants were aged eighteen or older undergoing surgery. For the statistical analysis of the extracted data, we employed RevMan 5.4.1. RESULTS: Ciprofol demonstrated a promising trend of higher anesthesiologists' satisfaction during the induction phase (MD 0.14, 95%, CI - 0.28 to 0.56, p = 0.51), whereas Propofol was favored during maintenance. Propofol also exhibited advantages with a shorter time to successful anesthesia induction (MD 0.08 min, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, p = 0.04), and quicker attainment of full alertness (MD 0.11 min, 95% CI - 1.29 to 1.52, p = 0.87), suggesting its efficiency in clinical practice. Importantly, there were no significant disparities in the success rate of anesthesia. CONCLUSION: Both ciprofol and propofol demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgery. While propofol provides a faster onset of induction, ciprofol exhibits advantages in terms of pain management. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting anesthetic agents, and tailoring choices to individual patient needs and clinical scenarios.
RESUMEN
Aims: The atrioventricular block (AVB) is a conduction system problem that results from the impairment in the transmission of an impulse from the atria to the ventricle, the disease has many etiologies. This article aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dual and single-chamber pacemakers in patients with SSS and AVB. Methods: An electronic search of PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, and Google Scholar was performed from 2000 till August 15th, 2022. Retrieved articles were exported to Endnote Reference Library Software, where duplicate studies were removed from the list, and only articles meeting the eligibility criteria of this study were selected. RevMan 5.4 and STATA 16 software were used for the analysis. The modified Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias and New-castle Ottawa scale were used for quality assessment of RCTs and observational studies respectively. Results: This study is composed of 8953 patients with sick-sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block. A total of thirteen outcomes are included in this meta-analysis, out of which atrial fibrillation significantly favored dual chamber [OR = 1.29; 95 % CI = 1.05-1.59; P = 0.01 I2 = 29 %] and overall complications [OR = 0.48; 95 % CI = 0.29-0.77; p = 0.03 I2 = 0 %] and pneumothorax [OR = 0.31; 95 % CI = 0.10-0.93; p = 0.04, I2 = 0 %] were satisfied by single-chamber pacing. Conclusion: This study concluded that neither single-chamber nor dual-chamber pacemakers are superior to each other, but they are unique in their own ways as the results of this study manifest remarkable reduction in atrial fibrillation rates and pneumothorax using dual-chamber and single-chamber pacemakers respectively.
