ObjectiveSurgery remains the primary form of treatment for infective endocarditis (IE). However, it is not clear what type of prosthetic valve provides a better prognosis. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the prognosis of infective endocarditis treated with biological valves to cases treated with mechanical valves.MethodsPubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from January 1960 to November 2016.Randomized controlled trials, retrospective cohorts and prospective studies comparing outcomes between biological valve and mechanical valve management for infective endocarditis were analyzed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale(NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the literature and extracted data, and Stata 12.0 software was used for the meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 11 publications were included; 10,754 cases were selected, involving 6776 cases of biological valves and 3,978 cases of mechanical valves. The all-cause mortality risk of the biological valve group was higher than that of the mechanical valve group (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44, P = 0.023), as was early mortality (RR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, P = 0.033). The recurrence of endocarditis (HR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.42, P = 0.001), as well as the risk of reoperation (HR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.80, P = 0.010) were more likely to occur in the biological valve group. The incidence of postoperative embolism was less in the biological valve group than in the mechanical valve group, but this difference was not statistically significant (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07, P = 0.245). For patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), there was no significant difference in survival rates between the biological valve group and the mechanical valve group (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21, P = 0.520).ConclusionThe results of our meta-analysis suggest that mechanical valves can provide a significantly better prognosis in patients with infective endocarditis. There were significant differences in the clinical features of patients receiving a biological valve compared to patients receiving a mechanical valve. A large, multicenter retrospective study included in our meta-analysis suggested that any mortality risk of the biological valve group was significant higher than that of the mechanical valve group. However, the risk was no different after risk was adjusted. So, we thought the reason for this result may be related to the characteristics of the patient rather than valve dysfunction. It is still necessary to future randomized studies to verify this conclusion.
Background: Patients with mechanical heart valves (MHV) have an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) are often recommended for bridging anticoagulation; however, it is not clear which strategy is more beneficial. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from January 1960 to March 2019. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were analyzed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Stata 11.0 was used for the meta-analysis. Results: A total of 6 publications were included; 1366 events were selected, involving 852 events with LMWH and 514 events with UFH. The thromboembolism risk of the LMWH group was lower than that of the UFH group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12–0.95, P = .039). The incidence of major bleeding was lower in the LMWH group than in the UFH group, albeit without statistical significance (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.68–1.30, P = .728), as was mortality (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.16–1.66, P = .271). Subgroup analysis showed that LMWH cardiac surgery patients had a higher risk of major bleeding compared with UFH cardiac surgery patients (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.72–1.90, P = .526); but among non-cardiac surgery patients, the LMWH group had a lower risk of major bleeding than the UFH group (RR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.51–1.22, P = .284), although the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that LMWH not only reduces the risk of thromboembolism in patients with MHV but also does not increase the risk of major bleeding. LMWH may provide safer and more effective bridging anticoagulation than UFH in patients with MHV. It is still necessary to conduct future randomized studies to verify this conclusion.
Capn4 belongs to a family of calpains that participate in a wide variety of biological functions, but little is known about the role of Capn4 in cardiac disease. Here, we show that the expression of Capn4 was significantly increased in Angiotensin II (Ang II)-treated cardiomyocytes and Ang II-induced cardiac hypertrophic mouse hearts. Importantly, in agreement with the Capn4 expression patterns, the maximal calpain activity measured in heart homogenates was elevated in Ang II-treated mice, and oral coadministration of SNJ-1945 (calpain inhibitor) attenuated the total calpain activity measured in vitro. Functional assays indicated that overexpression of Capn4 obviously aggravated Ang II-induced cardiac hypertrophy, whereas Capn4 knockdown resulted in the opposite phenotypes. Further investigation demonstrated that Capn4 maintained the activation of the insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-AKT signaling pathway in cardiomyocytes by increasing c-Jun expression. Mechanistic investigations revealed that Capn4 directly bound and stabilized c-Jun, and knockdown of Capn4 increased the ubiquitination level of c-Jun in cardiomyocytes. Additionally, our results demonstrated that the antihypertrophic effect of Capn4 silencing was partially dependent on the inhibition of c-Jun. Overall, these data suggested that Capn4 contributes to cardiac hypertrophy by enhancing the c-Jun-mediated IGF-AKT signaling pathway and could be a potential therapeutic target for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Background: Ventricular septal defect (VSD) and atrial septal defect (ASD) are congenital heart diseases. The techniques of transthoracic closure (TC) and percutaneous closure (PC) for the treatment of VSD and ASD have continuously improved and matured. This study aimed to retrospectively analyze the therapeutic effects of TC and PC on VSD and ASD patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 928 patients (552 VSD and 376 ASD) who had undergone TC or PC guided by transesophageal ultrasound at the Department of Cardiac Macrovascular Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between August 2010 and August 2020. We collected and evaluated the clinical data of the patients, including age, gender, weight, inlet and outlet diameters of defect, and the operation results of TC and PC. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze means and standard deviations (SD), and the Chi-square test was used to evaluate the difference between groups. Results: Among the 928 patients who were treated with the closure operation, there were no casualties, with 907 patients (97.7%) showing successful closure. Among the 552 VSD patients who were treated with TC, 540 showed successful close, while 12 cases required extracorporeal circulation after the failure of TC. Among the 376 patients with ASD, 256 patients were treated with TC, of which 251 were successful, and five were failures, including three shedding cases. In addition, among the 120 patients who were treated with PC, 116 were successful, and four were failures, including two shedding cases. Postoperative follow up for patients with successful closure operations demonstrated that the complications of aortic and tricuspid regurgitation, hydro-pericardium, III° atrioventricular block, shedding of closure umbrella, hemolysis, and thrombosis had not occurred. Conclusion: Closure operation of VSD and ASD by esophageal ultrasound has the advantages of lower trauma and blood loss, shorter hospital stay, simple operation, fewer postoperative complications, and significant therapeutic efficacy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.