4.7 Article

Additional Use of Trimetazidine in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.11.027

关键词

cardiac function; chronic heart failure; meta-analysis; prognosis; trimetazidine

资金

  1. Key Projects in the National Science & Technology Pillar Program [2006BAI01A04]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30871073]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of additional trimetazidine (TMZ) treatment on patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Background Conflicting results currently exist on the clinical use of TMZ in CHF patients. Methods PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews databases were searched through November 2010 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing TMZ treatment in CHF patients. Data concerning the study design, patient characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. Risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated using fixed or random effects models. Results Sixteen RCTs involving 884 CHF patients were included. Hospitalization for cardiac causes (RR: 0.43, p = 0.03), but not all-cause mortality (RR: 0.47, p = 0.27), was reduced by TMZ treatment. Moreover, TMZ therapy was associated not only with the increase of left ventricular ejection fraction (WMD: 6.46%, p < 0.0001) and total exercise time (WMD: 63.75 seconds, p < 0.0001), but also with the decrease of New York Heart Association functional class (WMD: -0.57, p = 0.0003), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (WMD: -6.67 mm, p < 0.0001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (WMD: -6.05 mm, p < 0.0001), and B-type natriuretic peptide (WMD: -203.40 pg/ml, p = 0.0002). Conclusions Additional use of TMZ in CHF patients may decrease hospitalization for cardiac causes, improve clinical symptoms and cardiac function, and simultaneously ameliorate left ventricular remodeling. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59:913-22) (C) 2012 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据