4.6 Review

Iron deficiency for prognosis in acute coronary syndrome - A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 328, 期 -, 页码 46-54

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.12.021

关键词

Acute coronary syndrome; Myocardial infarction; Iron deficiency; Prognosis; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Institute of Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that iron deficiency (ID) may lead to poorer long-term outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the impact on short-term prognosis remains inconclusive with heterogeneous findings across studies.
Background: Iron deficiency (ID) is an important predictor of adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure, however it is unclear whether ID also affects prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prognostic value of iron deficiency in patients with ACS. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library and included cohort studies of patients with ACS that were stratified by ID status. There were no restrictions on definition of ACS or ID. Studies were systematically appraised and data extracted by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed where two or more studies reported on the same pre-determined outcome measure. Results: Seven studies with 2821 participants were identified, reporting a high prevalence of ID in the ACS population. Three studies reported worse long-term outcomes in the ID population, whereas short-term outcomes were heterogeneous across studies. Conclusions: Patients with ID presenting with ACS may have a worse long-term prognosis but more studies are required for confirmation. A role for ID in prognosis of patients with ACS and as a potentially treatable condition may have implication for the current management of this patient population. (c) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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