Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2026
Levosimendan vs. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Yanjie, Qu Jinluan, Sheng Dan, Sun Xiang, Zhong Liqin, Wu Yingjie, Liang Hao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and levosimendan in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed®, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted through July 2024. Outcomes analyzed included atrial fibrillation, postoperative mediastinitis, the requirement for inotropic support, in-hospital mortality, postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative length of stay, ventilation time, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) levels.
RESULTS: The analysis included nine studies with 681 patients. Levosimendan presented advantage over IABP in CABG patients in terms of postoperative ICU stay, postoperative length of stay, and reduction in MAP levels, with effect sizes: mean difference (MD) = -0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.97 to -0.68, P < 0.00001, MD = -1.14, 95% CI: -1.33 to -0.95, P < 0.00001, and MD = -4.55, 95% CI: -6.14 to -2.96, P < 0.00001, respectively. Levosimendan had an advantage on subgroup analyses in terms of postoperative ICU stay and postoperative length of stay, with effect sizes: MD = -0.83, 95% CI: -0.93 to -0.72, P < 0.00001 and MD = -1.14, 95% CI: -1.28 to -1.01, P < 0.00001, respectively. However, the incidence of postoperative mediastinitis was higher in the levosimendan group (relative risk = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.88 to 2.38), though not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Levosimendan may improve recovery and hemodynamic outcomes in high-risk CABG patients compared to IABP but may be associated with a higher, though non-significant, risk of mediastinitis. Further high-quality studies are warranted.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed®, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted through July 2024. Outcomes analyzed included atrial fibrillation, postoperative mediastinitis, the requirement for inotropic support, in-hospital mortality, postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative length of stay, ventilation time, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) levels.
RESULTS: The analysis included nine studies with 681 patients. Levosimendan presented advantage over IABP in CABG patients in terms of postoperative ICU stay, postoperative length of stay, and reduction in MAP levels, with effect sizes: mean difference (MD) = -0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.97 to -0.68, P < 0.00001, MD = -1.14, 95% CI: -1.33 to -0.95, P < 0.00001, and MD = -4.55, 95% CI: -6.14 to -2.96, P < 0.00001, respectively. Levosimendan had an advantage on subgroup analyses in terms of postoperative ICU stay and postoperative length of stay, with effect sizes: MD = -0.83, 95% CI: -0.93 to -0.72, P < 0.00001 and MD = -1.14, 95% CI: -1.28 to -1.01, P < 0.00001, respectively. However, the incidence of postoperative mediastinitis was higher in the levosimendan group (relative risk = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.88 to 2.38), though not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Levosimendan may improve recovery and hemodynamic outcomes in high-risk CABG patients compared to IABP but may be associated with a higher, though non-significant, risk of mediastinitis. Further high-quality studies are warranted.