Publications (3)6.24 Total impact
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare the efficacy between left radial approach (LRA) and right radial approach (RRA) for coronary angiography (CAG). The following databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library, CBM, VIP, Wanfang databases and CNKI, from creation of database to January 2013. Two reviewers extracted data independently, according to inclusive criteria, exclusion criteria and methods of Cochrane Collaboration. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager Software (RevMan 5.1). Eleven trials with 5 442 patients were included in the systematic review. The results of meta-analysis showed that when compared with RRA, LRA did not increase the failure rate of the procedures (OR = 1.04, 95%CI 0.80-1.35, P > 0.05) and amount of contrast medium (mean difference = 2.39, 95%CI -0.30-5.08), P > 0.05). However, LRA was superior to RRA in reducing fluoroscopy time (standardized mean difference = 0.15, 95%CI 0.06-0.24, P < 0.01). In addition, the incidence of severe tortuosity of subclavian artery was significantly lower with LRA (OR = 4.65, 95%CI 1.98-10.88, P < 0.01). Based on the current evidence, LRA shares similar safety with RRA for CAG and is superior to RRA in certain respects. LRA can thus be used either as an alternative approach or routine approach for CAG.Zhonghua xin xue guan bing za zhi [Chinese journal of cardiovascular diseases] 03/2014; 42(3):241-6.
Article: Reply to Letter From Gu et al.The Canadian journal of cardiology 10/2012; · 3.12 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The effects of omega-3 fatty acids (PUFA) on the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) appear to contrast between several randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of PUFA for the primary and secondary prevention of AF. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were searched for randomized controlled trials (published up to January 2012) that compared PUFA with control. All statistical analyses were performed with RevMan (version 5.1; The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). RESULTS: For primary prevention after open heart surgery: 6 studies with 928 patients were designed to evaluate the effects of PUFA on the incidence of postoperative AF. The use of PUFA significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative AF (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.004); there was no difference in complications or adverse events (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.58-2.62; P = 0.58). For secondary prevention, we analyzed 5 studies involving 1256 patients designed to evaluate the effects of PUFA therapy on AF. The use of PUFA did not significantly reduce the recurrence of AF (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.39-1.42; P = 0.37); no difference was observed in complications or adverse events (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.78-1.57; P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis shows that PUFA therapy is significantly associated with a decreased odds of incidence of AF after open heart surgery, but there is no significant difference in recurrence of AF between PUFA and control groups. PUFA is well-tolerated, with no difference in complications or adverse events between PUFA and control groups.The Canadian journal of cardiology 06/2012; · 3.12 Impact Factor
Lanzhou UniversityKao-lan-hsien, Gansu Sheng, China