scholarly journals Diagnosis, prognostic significance, and characteristics of new-onset right bundle-branch block in patients with acute myocardial infarction: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 04 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
Juntao Wang ◽  
Jialu Zhu ◽  
Hongxing Luo ◽  
Chunling Kong ◽  
Cong Zhang ◽  
...  
Circulation ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 1139-1144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Melgarejo-Moreno ◽  
Jose Galcerá-Tomás ◽  
Arcadio García-Alberola ◽  
Mariano Valdés-Chavarri ◽  
Francisco J. Castillo-Soria ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 122-129
Author(s):  
Ahmed Adam ◽  
Jared McDowall ◽  
Sunday Joseph Aigbodion ◽  
Callistus Enyuma ◽  
Sean Buchanan ◽  
...  

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) occurs as a manifestation of coronary atherosclerotic disease. The occurrence of erectile dysfunction (ED) following AMI is well documented and this association and pathophysiology is often interrelated. Few studies have objectively assessed the diagnostic value of ED as a risk factor for AMI, in general. In this review, we aimed to better outline the diagnostic predictability of ED as a precursor for ‘first/new onset' AMI. This review was performed using selective search terms, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. The Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched (September 2018). Selected studies were further assessed for relevance and quality (Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool-Oxford). Four studies [573 participants; mean 143 (SD ± 76.3604) and median 141 participants] were eligible for analysis. Meta-analysis of the studies resulted in a pooled sensitivity of 51.36% (95% CI: 47.37-55.33%). For the single study which reported true negative and false positive cases, a specificity of 76.53% (95% CI: 68.57-83.00%) was calculated. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that a history of ED should be used as a risk factor for new onset AMI.


1997 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Melgarejo Moreno ◽  
Arcadi Garcı́a Alberola ◽  
José Galcerá Tomás ◽  
Mariano Valdés Chávarri ◽  
Francisco Castillo Soria ◽  
...  

Heart & Lung ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belal Al Rajoub ◽  
Samar Noureddine ◽  
Samer El Chami ◽  
Mohamad Hussein Haidar ◽  
Bachir Itani ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunita Sharma ◽  
Ahmad Hazem ◽  
Amit Sharma ◽  
Cameron Leitch ◽  
Roopalakshmi Sharadanant ◽  
...  

Objective: Multiple large population based observational studies have evaluated the association of various ECG changes with long term adverse outcomes demonstrating conflicting results regarding the significance of right bundle branch block (RBBB). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB in healthy population. Methods: This systematic review follows an a priori established protocol and is reported following the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). We systematically searched EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus through January 2014. We also consulted with content experts to recommend studies for screening. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts, selecting randomized trials and prospective cohort studies that described all cause mortality or cardiovascular death in patients with RBBB. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcome or unadjusted event rates. For statistical analysis, hazard ratios were considered to approximate risk ratios. The main outcomes of the study are all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Results: Based on the eligibility, four large cohorts, with total patient count > 100,000 were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and included studies were deemed to be of high quality. As demonstrated in Figure 1, RBBB was not associated increase in all-cause mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.89-1.25) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.70-1.69). Conclusion: In asymptomatic healthy patients, RBBB is not associated with poor outcome.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document