中国医药导报
中國醫藥導報
중국의약도보
CHINA MEDICAL HERALD
2014年
26期
13-16
,共4页
新活素%硝普钠%心力衰竭%Meta分析%随机对照试验
新活素%硝普鈉%心力衰竭%Meta分析%隨機對照試驗
신활소%초보납%심력쇠갈%Meta분석%수궤대조시험
Recombinant human brian natriuretic peptidein%Nitroprusside%Heart failure%Meta-analysis%Randomized controlled trial
目的：评价新活素治疗心力衰竭的效果和安全性。方法计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane 数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、万方全文数据库等中有关新活素与硝普钠治疗心力衰竭效果的随机对照试验(RCT)，检索时限为建库至2014年2月。在客观评价文献质量后，采用RevMan 5.1软件对纳入的试验结果进行Meta分析。结果共纳入8篇RCT文献。 Meta分析结果显示：心力衰竭总有效率比较差异有统计学意义(OR =4.76，95%CI：2.84~7.96，P<0.00001)。不良反应发生率比较差异无统计学意义(OR =0.85，95%CI：0.46~1.57，P=0.60)。结论新活素治疗心力衰竭的效果优于硝普钠，不能说明其药物不良反应发生率较低。鉴于纳入研究少、样本含量低，且质量不高，故仍需要对此进行大样本、多中心、更高质量、科学规范的临床随机对照试验，以期全面评价新活素治疗心衰的效果与安全性。
目的：評價新活素治療心力衰竭的效果和安全性。方法計算機檢索PubMed、Cochrane 數據庫、中國期刊全文數據庫、萬方全文數據庫等中有關新活素與硝普鈉治療心力衰竭效果的隨機對照試驗(RCT)，檢索時限為建庫至2014年2月。在客觀評價文獻質量後，採用RevMan 5.1軟件對納入的試驗結果進行Meta分析。結果共納入8篇RCT文獻。 Meta分析結果顯示：心力衰竭總有效率比較差異有統計學意義(OR =4.76，95%CI：2.84~7.96，P<0.00001)。不良反應髮生率比較差異無統計學意義(OR =0.85，95%CI：0.46~1.57，P=0.60)。結論新活素治療心力衰竭的效果優于硝普鈉，不能說明其藥物不良反應髮生率較低。鑒于納入研究少、樣本含量低，且質量不高，故仍需要對此進行大樣本、多中心、更高質量、科學規範的臨床隨機對照試驗，以期全麵評價新活素治療心衰的效果與安全性。
목적：평개신활소치료심력쇠갈적효과화안전성。방법계산궤검색PubMed、Cochrane 수거고、중국기간전문수거고、만방전문수거고등중유관신활소여초보납치료심력쇠갈효과적수궤대조시험(RCT)，검색시한위건고지2014년2월。재객관평개문헌질량후，채용RevMan 5.1연건대납입적시험결과진행Meta분석。결과공납입8편RCT문헌。 Meta분석결과현시：심력쇠갈총유효솔비교차이유통계학의의(OR =4.76，95%CI：2.84~7.96，P<0.00001)。불량반응발생솔비교차이무통계학의의(OR =0.85，95%CI：0.46~1.57，P=0.60)。결론신활소치료심력쇠갈적효과우우초보납，불능설명기약물불량반응발생솔교저。감우납입연구소、양본함량저，차질량불고，고잉수요대차진행대양본、다중심、경고질량、과학규범적림상수궤대조시험，이기전면평개신활소치료심쇠적효과여안전성。
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of recombinant human brian natriuretic peptidein (rhBNP) in treatment of heart failure. Methods The databases of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang were retrieved for collecting the randomized controlled trials (RCT) about rhBNP in treating heart failure from the date of establish-ment of the databases to February 2014. After the critical evaluation on the quality of literature, the extracted data was analyzed by RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 8 RCTs were discovered. Meta-analysis showed that there were statistical differences between two groups in evaluating the total effective rate of heart failure efficacy (OR =4.76, 95%CI:2.84-7.96, P< 0.000 01);there was no statistical difference between two groups in the incidence of side effects (OR =0.85, 95%CI: 0.46-1.57, P = 0.60). Conclusion rhBNP may be more effective than nitroprusside in the treatment of heart failure without increasing the side effects. Due to the limitation of the included studies, more large-sample, mul-tiple-center and high-quality scientific and specification RCTs are required.
