4.0 Article

Safety and effect of sildenafil on treating paediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension: a meta-analysis on the randomised controlled trials

期刊

CARDIOLOGY IN THE YOUNG
卷 30, 期 12, 页码 1882-1889

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S104795112000311X

关键词

Sildenafil; paediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension; effect; safety; mortality; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Efficacy of sildenafil in treating paediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension is controversial. This systematic review aimed to explore the safety and effect of sildenafil on treating paediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) through meta-analysis. Methods and results: In this study, the electronic databases, including the Cochran Library database, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were systemically retrieved to identify the related randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers had independently completed study selection, data collection, and assessment of the bias risk. Amongst 938 articles researched according to our retrieval strategy, 15 papers that involved 673 cases had been screened. Relative to control group, the sildenafil group had markedly reduced mortality (RR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.12-0.51; p < 0.0001), but difference within the mortality was not statistically significant between high- and low-dose sildenafil groups (p = 0.152). Nonetheless, difference of the mean pulmonary arterial pressure between sildenafil as well as control group was of no statistical significance. Differences in the length of hospital stay and the incidences of pulmonary hypertensive crisis between children with PAH and controls were of no statistical significance. However, the summary estimate favoured that sildenafil reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation time, as well as the length of ICU stay and inotropic support. Conclusions: Sildenafil therapy reduces the mortality of PAH patients, but its effects on the haemodynamic outcomes and other clinical outcomes are still unclear.

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

4.0
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