4.3 Article

Immunosuppressive treatment for myocarditis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 631-637

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000134

关键词

immunosuppressive treatment; meta-analysis; myocarditis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundImmunosuppressive treatment for myocarditis is controversial. Several small-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported inconsistent outcomes for patients with myocarditis.MethodsWe searched on the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles in English language between January 1966 and May 2013, as well as on the China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI, 1979 to May 2012) and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM, 1978 to May 2013) for articles in Chinese language. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.0.ResultsNine articles were finally selected, in which 342 patients were in immunosuppressive treatment group and 267 patients in conventional treatment group. The immunosuppressive treatment group showed a significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction at both short-term (3 months) [difference: 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05-0.10) and long-term (difference: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.00-0.21)] follow-up. Moreover, left ventricular end-diastolic dimension decreased significantly in the immunosuppressive treatment group after short-term follow-up (difference: -1.85mm, 95% CI: -3.18 to -0.52mm), but a long-term beneficial effect was not sustained (difference: -5.79mm, 95% CI: -15.30 to 3.72mm). There was no difference, however, between the two groups in the rate of death or heart transplantation (odds ratio: 1.33, 95% CI: 0.77, 2.31).ConclusionImmunosuppressive treatment might be beneficial for improving left ventricular systolic function and remodeling in patients with myocarditis, which could be considered as a therapeutic alternative when optimal conventional therapy is not effective. More large RCTs, however, are required.

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

4.3
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