Shaocheng Wang1,2, Qixian Li3, Hongwei Fang4, Hao Yang2, Diansan Su4, Yuan-Xiang Tao5, Zhankui Wang2, Xiangrui Wang2, Zhongwei Yang4. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Bengbu Medical College, Anhui, Bengbu, China. 2. Department of Pain Management, South Compus, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Shili Hospital, Luan, China. 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07103, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients with coronary disease suffer from angina that cannot be controlled by optimal medical management and revascularization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the method of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of patients with refractory angina (RA). METHODS: We searched multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The results of studies through March 2016 were included in our analyses. Systematic methodological appraisal and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. All data analyses utilized the Review Manager 5.3, and the results were merged as weighted mean differences (WMD). RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 364 patients who were diagnosed with RA were included in the analysis. After being pooled, the outcomes of the SCS treatment group did not differ from coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization (PMR) treatment groups. However, compared with 'no SCS stimulation' treatment groups, SCS significantly decreased nitrate drug usage (WMD: -2.03, 95% CI: [-3.12, -0.93], p=0. 0003) and increased several indicators of health-related quality of life (HRQOL). CONCLUSIONS: SCS appears to be a safe and effective management for RA although it has similar efficacy when compared to PMR or CABG as a potential replacement therapy. However, before this method is used as a conventional treatment, more high-quality designed multicenter RCTs are needed.
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients with coronary disease suffer from angina that cannot be controlled by optimal medical management and revascularization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the method of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of patients with refractory angina (RA). METHODS: We searched multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The results of studies through March 2016 were included in our analyses. Systematic methodological appraisal and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. All data analyses utilized the Review Manager 5.3, and the results were merged as weighted mean differences (WMD). RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 364 patients who were diagnosed with RA were included in the analysis. After being pooled, the outcomes of the SCS treatment group did not differ from coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization (PMR) treatment groups. However, compared with 'no SCS stimulation' treatment groups, SCS significantly decreased nitrate drug usage (WMD: -2.03, 95% CI: [-3.12, -0.93], p=0. 0003) and increased several indicators of health-related quality of life (HRQOL). CONCLUSIONS: SCS appears to be a safe and effective management for RA although it has similar efficacy when compared to PMR or CABG as a potential replacement therapy. However, before this method is used as a conventional treatment, more high-quality designed multicenter RCTs are needed.
Authors: Gilles Montalescot; Udo Sechtem; Stephan Achenbach; Felicita Andreotti; Chris Arden; Andrzej Budaj; Raffaele Bugiardini; Filippo Crea; Thomas Cuisset; Carlo Di Mario; J Rafael Ferreira; Bernard J Gersh; Anselm K Gitt; Jean-Sebastien Hulot; Nikolaus Marx; Lionel H Opie; Matthias Pfisterer; Eva Prescott; Frank Ruschitzka; Manel Sabaté; Roxy Senior; David Paul Taggart; Ernst E van der Wall; Christiaan J M Vrints; Jose Luis Zamorano; Stephan Achenbach; Helmut Baumgartner; Jeroen J Bax; Héctor Bueno; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Cetin Erol; Robert Fagard; Roberto Ferrari; David Hasdai; Arno W Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Patrizio Lancellotti; Ales Linhart; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Massimo F Piepoli; Piotr Ponikowski; Per Anton Sirnes; Juan Luis Tamargo; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; William Wijns; Stephan Windecker; Juhani Knuuti; Marco Valgimigli; Héctor Bueno; Marc J Claeys; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff; Cetin Erol; Herbert Frank; Christian Funck-Brentano; Oliver Gaemperli; José R Gonzalez-Juanatey; Michalis Hamilos; David Hasdai; Steen Husted; Stefan K James; Kari Kervinen; Philippe Kolh; Steen Dalby Kristensen; Patrizio Lancellotti; Aldo Pietro Maggioni; Massimo F Piepoli; Axel R Pries; Francesco Romeo; Lars Rydén; Maarten L Simoons; Per Anton Sirnes; Ph Gabriel Steg; Adam Timmis; William Wijns; Stephan Windecker; Aylin Yildirir; Jose Luis Zamorano Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: René Cardinal; Pierre Pagé; Michel Vermeulen; Caroline Bouchard; Jeffrey L Ardell; Robert D Foreman; J Andrew Armour Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2006-06-15 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: C Mannheimer; T Eliasson; L E Augustinsson; C Blomstrand; H Emanuelsson; S Larsson; H Norrsell; A Hjalmarsson Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-03-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Douglas P Zipes; Nelson Svorkdal; Daniel Berman; Richard Boortz-Marx; Timothy Henry; Amir Lerman; Edgar Ross; Michael Turner; Christopher Irwin Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2012-04-11