ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via radial access versus via femoral access for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the clinical efficacy and safety of radial access for PCI in patients with acute STEMI were searched in PubMed, EMbase, CBM, The Cochrane Library (Issue 6, 2014), CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Data from 2000 to November 2014. Literature screening according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction and methodological quality assessment of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. Then meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of fourteen RCTs involving 5 212 patients were enrolled. The results indicated that:a) radial access was associated with decreased risks of mortality (OR=0.54, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.74, P=0.000 1); decreased incidences of major bleeding (OR=0.50, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.74, P=0.000 8), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (OR=0.65, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.83, P=0.000 6), and puncture site complications (OR=0.35, 95%CI 0.25 to 0.49, P < 0.000 01); and decreased hospital duration (MD=-2.14, 95%CI-3.97 to-0.31, P=0.002). b) However, the two groups were alike in the success rate of operation, exposure time of X ray, risk of stroke, and the rate of CABG. PCI via radial access took more operation time than that via femoral access, and PCI via radial access had a higher incidence of changing puncture access. ConclusionFor acute STEMI patients undergoing PCI, radial access could significantly reduce mortality, and incidences of major bleeding, MACE and puncture site complications. Therefore, under the conditions of strict indication control and increased operation skills, PCI via radial access is effective and safe in the treatment of acute STEMI. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more large-scale, multi-centre, high quality RCTs are needed to verify the above conclusion.
Objective To investigate the amputation-related pain and quality of life (QoL) between the amputees with transfemoral amputation (TFA) and transtibial amputation (TTA) 10 years after the Wenchuan earthquake, and compare the effects of two different amputation level on the long-term functional rehabilitation of amputees. Methods A total of 305 amputees from Center of Comprehensive Service of Disabled of Deyang for the disabled 10 years after the Wenchuan earthquake were selected for cross-sectional study from February to June 2018. Through face-to-face interview, the basic information of amputees was collected and the evaluation of Prosthetic Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) was completed. The amputees were divided into TFA group and TTA group according to the amputation level. Results A total of 53 amputees were included, including 27 in the TFA group and 26 in the TTA group. The PEQ scores showed that the prevalences of phantom limb sensation (96.3% vs. 65.4%; χ2=6.372, P=0.012) and phantom limb pain (92.6% vs. 69.2%; P=0.039) in the TFA group were significantly higher than those in the TTA group. There was no significant difference with regard to the intensity of amputation-related pain between the victims with TFA and TTA (P>0.05). However, the TFA group were more bothered by phantom limb sensation than the TTA group (52.9±24.1 vs. 35.9±26.7; t=2.108, P=0.042), there was no significant difference in other indexes (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in QoL between the TFA and TTA groups (P>0.05). Conclusions The phantom limb sensation, phantom limb pain, residual limb pain, non-amputated limb pain and back pain are still prevalent among the victims with TFA and TTA 10 years after the Wenchuan earthquake. The higher amputation level is associated with increased prevalence of phantom limb sensation and phantom limb pain, as well as more bothersomeness of phantom limb sensation. The amputation level appeares to have no impact on the long-term QoL.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and endovascular abdominal aortic repair have now become the first-line treatment options for aortic stenosis and aortic disease, respectively. For patients with both diseases, combined procedures have been reported in a few domestic and foreign publications. However, all the procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Here, we reported a case of simultaneous minimalist transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement and endovascular repair of the abdominal aorta for a 78-years-old male patient with aortic stenosis and abdominal aortic ulcer, and the surgical results were satisfactory.