3.8 Article

Meta-Analysis of Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Maintenance Dialysis Patients

期刊

NEPHRON CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 124, 期 3-4, 页码 209-217

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000357676

关键词

Statin; Cholesterol; Atherosclerosis; Dialysis; Meta-analysis; Ezetimibe; Cardiovascular; Lipid-lowering therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: The use of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) in patients on chronic dialysis is contentious. Here we present an aggregate data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long-term LLT versus placebo in dialysis patients. Method: A search of Medline, Google Scholar, COCHRANE database, EMBASE, and cardiovascular and nephrology society proceedings was performed. Criteria for inclusion were RCTs of LLT versus placebo, in which LLT was demonstrated to significantly reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, > 12 months of follow-up, and at least one cardiovascular or mortality endpoint in an independently reported dialysis population. Meta-analysis was performed for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, stroke and mortality using a random-effects method for odds ratio (OR) of risk. Results: Three studies were included with 7,051 patients (3,541 treatment and 3,510 placebo). Twenty-five percent of the LLT patients suffered an atherosclerotic cardiovascular event versus 27% for placebo. The OR was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.800.99, p = 0.04). For stroke (haemorrhagic and non-haemorrhagic combined), the figures were 6.2% (LLT) versus 5.7% (placebo) [OR = 1.11 (95% CI: 0.85-1.46, p = 0.45)]. For all-cause mortality, the figures were 40 versus 42% [OR = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.88-1.06, p = 0.49)]. Conclusion: There was an overall significant reduction in risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events in dialysis patients treated with LLT compared to placebo. There was a numerical but not a statistical reduction in mortality. There was no statistically significant increase in risk of stroke as has been previously reported. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

3.8
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