Conclusions: On the basis of the results of this meta-analysis TAVR may be a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with cancer and symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Meta-regression demonstrated there was no significant association modifying. The rates of bleeding and need for new pacemaker implantation were not significantly different. The frequency of AKI was 14.2% in cancer patients vs. The frequency of stroke was 2.4% compared with 2.7% (odds ratio of 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.76-0.99 p < 0.04). The short-term mortality in the cancer group was 2.4% compared with 3.3% in the control group (odds ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.82 p < 0.0001). Results: Five studies with 11,129 patients in the cancer group and 41,706 patients in the control group met inclusion criteria. Meta-regression was also conducted to determine if common clinical factors modified the possible association between cancer status and TAVR mortality. Studies that compared the use of TAVR in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and cancer against patients without cancer were included. Methods: We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2015 to 2020. We thus conducted the largest known multi-center meta-analysis on TAVR and cancer status. The safety and efficacy of TAVR in cancer patients has not yet been reliably established.
TAVR has expanded the treatment options for this lethal disease process. Background: Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease in the world. Similarly, the complication rates were low and similar between the 2 groups.Objectives: This study sought to systematically analyze the available clinical evidence on TAVR therapy in cancer patients with symptomatic severe AS. Conclusions: There were no differences in the diagnostic yield, sample adequacy, or the mean number of needle passes between the 21 and 22 G groups during EBUS-TBNA. There were no major complications reported in any of these studies. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the diagnostic yield (73.7% vs. The sample adequacy rate was 89.1% in the 21 G group and 90.0% in the 22 G group and this difference was not statistically significant. Results: A total of 5 studies involving 1720 patients were identified. Between study heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Study-specific odds ratios (OR) were calculated and combined using random-effects model. All the extracted data underwent meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 and Comprehensive Meta-analysis 3.3. Methods: A systematic search for the identification of all relevant studies comparing 21 and 22 G needles in EBUS-TBNA was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS databases up to September 21, 2014. We aimed to systematically analyze all existing literature comparing the diagnostic benefit of these 2 needles. Few studies have compared the diagnostic utility of EBUS-TB107NA using 21 versus 22 G needles.
Background: Two different needle gauges (21 and 22 G) are currently used for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA).
0 kommentar(er)
