Search

Background: The safety and the benefits of reducing the risk of bleeding complications via protamine administration during the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. This study aimed to systematically assessed the efficacy and safety of using protamine in PCI. Method: Potential academic studies were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science. The time range we retrieved from was that from the inception of electronic databases to March 31, 2022. Gray studies were identified from the references of included literature reports. Stata version 12.0 statistical software (StataCorp LP) was used to analyze the pooled data. Results: A total of seven studies were involved in our study. The overall participants of the protamine group were 4983, whereas it was 1953 in the nonprotamine group. This meta‐analysis indicated that protamine was preferable for PCI as its lower value of major bleeding (odds ratio [OR] = 0.489, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.362–0.661, p <.001) and minor bleeding (OR = 0.281, 95% CI: 0.123–0.643, p =.003). Additionally, the protamine did not tend to be related a higher incidence of mortality (p =.143), myocardial infarction (p =.990), and stent thrombosis (p =.698). Conclusions: Based on available evidence, use of protamine may reduce the risk of bleeding complications without increasing the risk of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. Given the relevant possible biases in our study, adequately powered and better‐designed studies with long‐term follow‐up are required to reach a firmer conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) paired with western medicine in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 remains controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to identify the effects of TCM. Seven electronic databases were reviewed from the inception of these databases to 30 June 2022. A quality assessment of the included studies was performed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool to provide a score of high, unclear, or low risk of bias. The standard software program (Stata, version 12.0, statistical software) was used for endpoint analyses. A total of 13 RCTs involving 1398 patients conducted in China were included. The cross-sectional data from various studies were plotted, and the results illustrated that the statistically higher rates of total effectiveness (RR, 1.357; 95% CI, 1.259 to 1.464; P < 0.001), improvement of chest CT (RR, 1.249; 95% CI, 1.143 to 1.356; P < 0.001), and cough improvement (RR, 1.228; 95% CI, 1.057 to 1.570; P = 0.012) and a lower incidence of conversion to severe cases (RR, 0.408; 95% CI, 0.275 to 0.605; P < 0.001) were demonstrated in the TCM group than that of the control group. Of note, the subgroup on specific TCM of Lianhua Qingwen (LQ) revealed that the experiment group was associated with a higher rate of total effectiveness (RR, 1.248; 95% CI, 1.136 to 1.371; P < 0.001) and improvement of chest CT (RR, 1.226; 95% CI, 1.110 to 1.356; P < 0.001) and a lower rate of conversion to severe cases (RR, 0.469; 95% CI, 0.311 to 0.707; P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in fever improvement (RD, 0.110; 95% CI, -0.063 to 0.283; P = 0.213). The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that TCM combined with western medicine is more effective in treating COVID-19 via relieving symptoms, promoting patients' recovery, and cutting the rate of patients developing into severe conditions. However, given the relevant possible biases in our study, adequately powered and better-designed studies with long-term follow-up are required to reach a firmer conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Protamine can decrease the risk of hemorrhage during carotid recanalization. However, it may cause severe side effects. There is no consensus on the safety and efficacy of protamine during surgery. Thus, we conduct a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to compare the differences between the protamine and the no-protamine group. Method: We systematically obtained literature from Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and PubMed electronic databases. All four databases were scanned from 1937 when protamine was first adopted as a heparin antagonist until February 2021. The reference lists of identified studies were manually checked to determine other eligible studies that qualify. The articles were included in this meta-analysis as long as they met the criteria of PICOS; conference or commentary articles, letters, case report or series, and animal observation were excluded from this study. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and Cochrane Collaboration's tool are used to assess the risk of bias of each included observational study and RCT, respectively. Stata version 12.0 statistical software (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas) was adopted as statistical software. When I 2 < 50%, we consider that the data have no obvious heterogeneity, and we conduct a meta-analysis using the fixed-effect model. Otherwise, the random-effect model was performed. Result: A total of 11 studies, consisting of 94,618 participants, are included in this study. Our analysis found that the rate of wound hematoma had a significant difference among protamine and no-protamine patients (OR = 0.268, 95% CI = 0.093 to 0.774, p = 0.015). Furthermore, the incidence of hematoma requiring re-operation (0.7%) was significantly lower than that of patients without protamine (1.8%). However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke, wound hematoma with hypertension, transient ischemic attacks (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), and death. Conclusion: Among included participants undergoing recanalization, the use of protamine is effective in reducing hematoma without increasing the risk of having other complications. Besides, more evidence-based performance is needed to supplement this opinion due to inherent limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of surgical revascularization versus conservative treatment and different surgical modalities, in order to provide evidence for the patient with moyamoya disease (MMD) to choose the appropriate treatment. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for articles published regarding MMD treatment. If the I 2 value, which evaluated the heterogeneity, was <50%, a fixed-effect model was used; if not, a random effect model was applied. Twenty-seven articles were included in the meta-analysis. The surgery group is more advantageous in reducing the risk of future stroke events than conservative treatment in MMD patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20–0.33, P < 0.001). In addition, the surgical group also had an advantage in terms of increased cerebral perfusion (OR 7.16, 95% CI 3.28–15.64, P < 0.001) and death due to rebleeding (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10–0.72, P < 0.01). Direct surgery showed a significant efficacy over indirect surgery (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.32–3.13, P < 0.01). No obvious difference was found between the direct and indirect bypass subset (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.51–1.14, P = 0.185). Angiographic results in patients undergoing direct bypass surgery are more pronounced (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06–0.67, P < 0.01). In patients with symptomatic moyamoya disease, bypass surgery is more effective than conservative treatment to prevent future strokes. In surgical patients, direct bypass seems to reduce the risk of stroke more than an indirect bypass. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]