
FOLLOWUS
纸质出版日期:2009
Scan QR Code
[1].Sevoflurane Versus Propofol for Myocardial Protection in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials[J].Chinese Medical Sciences Journal,2009,24(03):133-141.
Yun-tai Yao and Li-huan LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Fuwai Cardiovascular Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, et al. Sevoflurane Versus Propofol for Myocardial Protection in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials[J]. Chinese medical sciences journal, 2009, 24(3): 133-141.
[1].Sevoflurane Versus Propofol for Myocardial Protection in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials[J].Chinese Medical Sciences Journal,2009,24(03):133-141. DOI:
Yun-tai Yao and Li-huan LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Fuwai Cardiovascular Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, et al. Sevoflurane Versus Propofol for Myocardial Protection in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials[J]. Chinese medical sciences journal, 2009, 24(3): 133-141. DOI:
Objective To systematically review randomized controlled trials to compare myocardial protection profiles of sevoflurane with propofol in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. Methods Electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials comparing sevoflurane with propofol for protecting myocardium in adult patients undergoing CABG surgery. Two authors independently extracted patients’ perioperative data
including patients’ baseline characteristics
surgical variables
and outcome data. For continuous variables
treatment effects were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidential interval (CI). For dichotomous data
treatment effects were calculated as odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI. Each outcome was tested for heterogeneity
and randomized-effects or fixed-effects model was used in the presence or absence of significant heterogeneity (Q test P<0.05). Sensitivity analyses were done by examining the influence of statistical model on estimated treatment effects. Publication bias was explored through visual inspection of funnel plots of the outcomes. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05. Results Our search yielded 13 studies including 696 patients
and 402 patients were allocated into sevoflurane group and 294 into propofol group. There was no significant difference in postoperative mechanical ventilation time
inotropic support
mortality
myocardial infarction
and atrial fibrillation between the two groups (all P>0.05). Patients randomized into sevoflurane group had higher post-bypass cardiac index (WMD=0.39
95% CI: 0.18 to 0.60
P=0.0003)
lower troponin I level (WMD=-0.82
95% CI:-0.87 to-0.85
P=0.0002)
lower incidence of myocardial ischemia (OR=0.37
95% CI: 0.16 to 0.83
P=0.02)
shorter ICU and hospital stay length (WMD=-10.99
95% CI:-12.97 to-9.01
P<0.00001; WMD=-0.78
95% CI:-1.00 to-0.56
P<0.00001
respectively). Conclusion This meta-analysis has found some evidence showing that sevoflurane has better myocardial protection than propofol in CABG surgery.
Objective To systematically review randomized controlled trials to compare myocardial protection profiles of sevoflurane with propofol in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. Methods Electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials comparing sevoflurane with propofol for protecting myocardium in adult patients undergoing CABG surgery. Two authors independently extracted patients’ perioperative data
including patients’ baseline characteristics
surgical variables
and outcome data. For continuous variables
treatment effects were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidential interval (CI). For dichotomous data
treatment effects were calculated as odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI. Each outcome was tested for heterogeneity
and randomized-effects or fixed-effects model was used in the presence or absence of significant heterogeneity (Q test P<0.05). Sensitivity analyses were done by examining the influence of statistical model on estimated treatment effects. Publication bias was explored through visual inspection of funnel plots of the outcomes. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05. Results Our search yielded 13 studies including 696 patients
and 402 patients were allocated into sevoflurane group and 294 into propofol group. There was no significant difference in postoperative mechanical ventilation time
inotropic support
mortality
myocardial infarction
and atrial fibrillation between the two groups (all P>0.05). Patients randomized into sevoflurane group had higher post-bypass cardiac index (WMD=0.39
95% CI: 0.18 to 0.60
P=0.0003)
lower troponin I level (WMD=-0.82
95% CI:-0.87 to-0.85
P=0.0002)
lower incidence of myocardial ischemia (OR=0.37
95% CI: 0.16 to 0.83
P=0.02)
shorter ICU and hospital stay length (WMD=-10.99
95% CI:-12.97 to-9.01
P<0.00001; WMD=-0.78
95% CI:-1.00 to-0.56
P<0.00001
respectively). Conclusion This meta-analysis has found some evidence showing that sevoflurane has better myocardial protection than propofol in CABG surgery.
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621