Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2018
Outcomes of ICDs and CRTs in patients with chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis of 21,000 patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Shurrab Mohammed, Ko Dennis T, Zayed Yazan, Navaneethan Sankar D, Yadak Nour, Yaseen Abeer, Kaoutskaia Anna, Qamhia Waad, Hamdan Zakaria, Haj-Yahia Saleem, Lee Douglas S, Newman David, Healey Jeff S, Harvey Paula, Crystal Eugene
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis is to explore the association between ICD/CRT and mortality in CKD patients.
METHODS: An electronic search was conducted using MEDLINE. We included studies that reported outcomes of interest in CKD patients stratified by the presence of ICD, CRT, or none. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Outcomes were pooled using random effects model. Odds ratios (OR) were reported for dichotomous variables.
RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 11 studies (observational studies) including 21,136 adult patients: seven studies compared ICD vs. no ICD and four studies compared CRT vs. ICD. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the ICD group in comparison to that in the no ICD group (OR 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45; 0.98), P = 0.04). Among dialysis-only patients, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the ICD group (OR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38; 0.64), P < 0.001). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the CRT group in comparison to that in the ICD group (OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.57; 0.92), P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of ICDs is associated with lower all-cause mortality in observational studies of CKD patients. CRT use was also associated with lower all-cause mortality in CKD patients in comparison to ICDs. A randomized controlled trial is required to definitively define the role of ICDs/CRTs in CKD patients.
METHODS: An electronic search was conducted using MEDLINE. We included studies that reported outcomes of interest in CKD patients stratified by the presence of ICD, CRT, or none. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Outcomes were pooled using random effects model. Odds ratios (OR) were reported for dichotomous variables.
RESULTS: The literature search resulted in 11 studies (observational studies) including 21,136 adult patients: seven studies compared ICD vs. no ICD and four studies compared CRT vs. ICD. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the ICD group in comparison to that in the no ICD group (OR 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45; 0.98), P = 0.04). Among dialysis-only patients, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the ICD group (OR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38; 0.64), P < 0.001). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the CRT group in comparison to that in the ICD group (OR 0.73 (95% CI 0.57; 0.92), P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of ICDs is associated with lower all-cause mortality in observational studies of CKD patients. CRT use was also associated with lower all-cause mortality in CKD patients in comparison to ICDs. A randomized controlled trial is required to definitively define the role of ICDs/CRTs in CKD patients.