Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) ; 2019
    In:  American Journal of Therapeutics Vol. 26, No. 1 ( 2019-01), p. e151-e160
    In: American Journal of Therapeutics, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 26, No. 1 ( 2019-01), p. e151-e160
    Abstract: The safety and efficacy of supplemental oxygen in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. Study Question: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of supplemental oxygen in patients who present with AMI. Data Sources: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and conference proceedings from inception through January 2016. Study Design: Eligible studies were randomized trials that evaluated the role of oxygen compared with room air in AMI. The clinical outcome measured was 30-day mortality, and odds ratio (OR) was calculated for the measured outcome. The Mantel–Haenszel method was used to pool 30-day mortality in a random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of revascularization of the culprit artery on the outcome. Results: The pooled analysis suggested no difference in 30-day mortality [OR 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30–4.00; P = 0.89] between oxygen and room air. Metaregression demonstrated that all the between-study variance was because of coronary revascularization ( P = 0.01, R 2 = 1.0). A subgroup analysis suggested a trend toward increased mortality with oxygen (OR 3.26; 95% CI, 0.94–11.29; P = 0.06) when less than half of the patient population underwent revascularization. On the other hand, there was a nonsignificant numerical decrease in mortality with oxygen (OR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.14–1.19; P = 0.10) in the presence of coronary revascularization. Metaregression confirmed that all the between-study variance was because of coronary revascularization ( P = 0.01, R 2 = 1.0). Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, we found that the evidence on the safety and efficacy of oxygen was not only weak and inconsistent but also had modest statistical power. The variation in results was mainly because of the presence or absence of revascularization of the culprit artery. Adequately powered studies are needed to further delineate the role of oxygen in patients undergoing coronary revascularization.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1075-2765
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Publication Date: 2019
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2026900-6
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages