论文部分内容阅读
目的 本研究对急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者氧疗的疗效进行系统回顾和荟萃分析.方法 通过计算机检索和手工检索全面收集国内外关于常规氧疗治疗急性心肌梗死的随机对照研究(RCT)文献,评估指标为全因死亡率、复发性冠状动脉事件(缺血或心肌梗死)、心律失常、疼痛发生情况.按纳入与排除标准选择文献,评价纳入文献质量,提取资料,采用RevMan 5.3软件及Stata 15.1软件对数据进行Meta分析.结果 纳入7项RCT,共7 611例AMI患者,其中常规氧疗组3 805例,对照组3 806例.Meta分析显示,与对照组相比,氧疗并不能降低AMI患者全因死亡的风险(RR,0.986;95% CI,0.81~1.20;P=0.253,I2%=25%)、复发性心肌缺血或心肌梗死风险(RR 1.241;95% CI,0.98~1.58; P=0.236,I2=27.9%)、心律失常事件发生(RR, 0.982;95% CI,0.85~1.14; P=0.22,I2=30%)及疼痛发生情况(RR, 1.009;95%CI,0.86~1.19; P=0.047,I2=62.2%).结论 此项荟萃分析证实在氧饱和度正常的急性心肌梗死患者中常规氧疗没有益处.“,”Objective The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of oxygen therapy versus no oxygen therapy in post–acute myocardial infarction settings.Method A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted for randomized studies, which reported cardiovascular events in oxygen versus no ox?ygen therapy. The evaluated outcomes were all-cause mortality, recurrent coronary events (ischemia or myocardial infarc?tion), arrhythmias and pain . The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by Cochrane scale.Results Our meta-analysis included a total of 7 studies with 3 805 patients who received oxygen therapy and 3806 patients without oxygen therapy. Oxygen therapy did not decrease the risk of all-cause mortality (RR , 0.986; 95% CI,0.81~1.20; P=0.253,I2%=25%), recurrent ischemia or myocardial infarction (RR, 1.241;95%CI,0.9~1.58; P=0.236,I2=27.9%), occurrence of ar?rhythmia events (RR, 0.982; 95% CI,0.85~1.14; P=0.22,I2=30%),and pain (RR, 1.009; 95% CI,0.86~1.19; P=0.047,I2=62.2%) compared with the no oxygen therapy.Conclusions This meta-analysis confirms the lack of benefit of routine ox?ygen therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction with normal oxygen saturation levels .