Blog
About

11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Spinal Cord Stimulation for Refractory Angina Pectoris : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives:

          Paresthesia-free stimulation such as high frequency and burst have been demonstrated as effective therapies for neuropathic pain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of refractory angina pectoris (RAP).

          Materials and Methods:

          Relevant randomized controlled trials that investigated SCS for patients with RAP were comprehensively searched in Medline, Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Five meta-analyses were performed examining the changes in Canadian Cardiovascular Society classes, exercise time, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores of pain, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and nitroglycerin use in RAP patients after SCS therapy. We analyzed standardized mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome by Review Manager 5.0 and STATA 12.0.

          Results:

          A total of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 476 RAP patients were identified. A trend of reduction in the angina frequency (MD=−9.03, 95% CI, −15.70 to −2.36) and nitroglycerin consumption (MD=−0.64, 95% CI, −0.84 to −0.45) could be observed in the SCS group. Compared with the control group, SCS showed benefit on increasing exercise time (MD=0.49, 95% CI, 0.13-0.85) and treatment satisfaction (MD=6.87, 95% CI, 2.07-11.66) with decreased VAS scores of pain (MD=−0.50, 95% CI, −0.81 to −0.20) and disease perception (MD=−8.34, 95% CI, −14.45 to −2.23). However, the result did not reach the significance level in terms of physical limitation (95% CI, −8.75 to 3.38; P=0.39) or angina stability (95% CI, −7.55 to 3.67; P=0.50).

          Discussion:

          The current meta-analysis suggested that SCS was a potential alternative in the treatment of PAP patients. Further investigation for finding the appropriate intensity of stimulation is required before this treatment should be widely recommended and applied.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals.

          Review articles are important sources of information to help guide decisions by clinicians, patients, and other decision makers. Ideally, reviews should include strategies to minimize bias and to maximize precision and be reported so explicitly that any interested reader would be able to replicate them. To compare the methodological and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper-based journals indexed in MEDLINE. The Cochrane Library, issue 2 of 1995, and a search of MEDLINE restricted to 1995. All 36 completed reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and a randomly selected sample of 39 meta-analyses or systematic reviews published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in 1995. Number of authors, trials, and patients; trial sources; inclusion and exclusion criteria; language restrictions; primary outcome; trial quality assessment; heterogeneity testing; and effect estimates. Updating by 1997 was evaluated. Reviews found in MEDLINE included more authors (median, 3 vs 2; P<.001), more trials (median, 13.5 vs 5; P<.001), and more patients (median, 1280 vs 528; P<.001) than Cochrane reviews. More Cochrane reviews, however, included a description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (35/36 vs 18/39; P<.001) and assessed trial quality (36/36 vs 12/39; P<.001). No Cochrane reviews had language restrictions (0/36 vs 7/39; P<.01). There were no differences in sources of trials, heterogeneity testing, or description of effect estimates. By June 1997, 18 of 36 Cochrane reviews had been updated vs 1 of 39 reviews listed in MEDLINE. Cochrane reviews appear to have greater methodological rigor and are more frequently updated than systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in paper-based journals.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The problem of chronic refractory angina; report from the ESC Joint Study Group on the Treatment of Refractory Angina.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Dorsal root ganglion – a potential new therapeutic target for neuropathic pain

              A regional approach can protect our patients from often unacceptable adverse effects produced by systematically applied drugs. Regional therapeutic approaches, as well as interventions at the level of the peripheral nervous system and particularly the dorsal root ganglion (DRG), represent an alternative to the systemic application of therapeutic agents. This article provides an overview of DRG anatomical peculiarities, explains why the DRG is an important therapeutic target, and how animal models of targeted drug delivery can help us in the translation of basic research into clinical practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin J Pain
                Clin J Pain
                AJP
                The Clinical Journal of Pain
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
                0749-8047
                1536-5409
                June 2017
                21 November 2016
                : 33
                : 6
                : 543-551
                Affiliations
                [* ]Department of Clinical Medicine, Nanjing Medical University
                []Department of Anesthesiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China
                Author notes
                Reprints: Xiaoxiao Pan, MS, Department of Clinical Medicine, Nanjing Medical University, 140 Hanzhong Road, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210029, China (e-mail: njmupxx@ 123456163.com ).
                Article
                10.1097/AJP.0000000000000435
                5417578
                27875377
                Copyright © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                Product
                Categories
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article