-
British Journal of Sports Medicine Aug 2023To estimate the efficacy of exercise on depressive symptoms compared with non-active control groups and to determine the moderating effects of exercise on depression and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the efficacy of exercise on depressive symptoms compared with non-active control groups and to determine the moderating effects of exercise on depression and the presence of publication bias.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science were searched without language restrictions from inception to 13 September2022 (PROSPERO registration no CRD42020210651).
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials including participants aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder or those with depressive symptoms determined by validated screening measures scoring above the threshold value, investigating the effects of an exercise intervention (aerobic and/or resistance exercise) compared with a non-exercising control group.
RESULTS
Forty-one studies, comprising 2264 participants post intervention were included in the meta-analysis demonstrating large effects (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.946, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.71) favouring exercise interventions which corresponds to the number needed to treat (NNT)=2 (95% CI 1.68 to 2.59). Large effects were found in studies with individuals with major depressive disorder (SMD=-0.998, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.61, k=20), supervised exercise interventions (SMD=-1.026, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.77, k=40) and moderate effects when analyses were restricted to low risk of bias studies (SMD=-0.666, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.34, k=12, NNT=2.8 (95% CI 1.94 to 5.22)).
CONCLUSION
Exercise is efficacious in treating depression and depressive symptoms and should be offered as an evidence-based treatment option focusing on supervised and group exercise with moderate intensity and aerobic exercise regimes. The small sample sizes of many trials and high heterogeneity in methods should be considered when interpreting the results.
Topics: Humans; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Exercise; Exercise Therapy
PubMed: 36731907
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2022-106282 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2021(1) Background: Stretching is known to improve range of motion (ROM), and evidence has suggested that strength training (ST) is effective too. However, it is unclear... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: Stretching is known to improve range of motion (ROM), and evidence has suggested that strength training (ST) is effective too. However, it is unclear whether its efficacy is comparable to stretching. The goal was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of ST and stretching on ROM (INPLASY 10.37766/inplasy2020.9.0098). (2) Methods: Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, and Web of Science were consulted in October 2020 and updated in March 2021, followed by search within reference lists and expert suggestions (no constraints on language or year). Eligibility criteria: (P) Humans of any condition; (I) ST interventions; (C) stretching (O) ROM; (S) supervised RCTs. (3) Results: Eleven articles ( = 452 participants) were included. Pooled data showed no differences between ST and stretching on ROM (ES = -0.22; 95% CI = -0.55 to 0.12; = 0.206). Sub-group analyses based on risk of bias, active vs. passive ROM, and movement-per-joint analyses showed no between-protocol differences in ROM gains. (4) Conclusions: ST and stretching were not different in their effects on ROM, but the studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of design, protocols and populations, and so further research is warranted. However, the qualitative effects of all the studies were quite homogeneous.
PubMed: 33917036
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9040427 -
Medicine Jun 2023The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of scapular mobilization on range of motion, shoulder disability, and pain intensity in patients with primary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of scapular mobilization on range of motion, shoulder disability, and pain intensity in patients with primary adhesive capsulitis (AC).
METHODS
An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CENTRAL, LILACS, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases up to March 2023. The eligibility criteria for selected studies included randomized clinical trials that included scapular mobilization with or without other therapeutic interventions for range of motion, shoulder disability, and pain intensity in patients older than 18 years with primary AC. Two authors independently performed the search, study selection, and data extraction, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.
RESULTS
Six randomized clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. For scapular mobilization versus other therapeutic interventions, there was no significant difference in the effect sizes between groups: the standard mean difference was -0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.87 to 0.56; P = .66) for external rotation, -1.01 (95% CI = -2.33 to 0.31; P = .13) for flexion, -0.29 (95% CI = -1.17 to 0.60; P = .52) for shoulder disability, and 0.65 (95% CI = -0.42 to 1.72; P = .23) for pain intensity.
CONCLUSIONS
Scapular mobilization with or without other therapeutic interventions does not provide a significant clinical benefit regarding active shoulder range of motion, disability, or pain intensity in patients with primary AC, compared with other manual therapy techniques or other treatments; the quality of evidence was very low to moderate according to the grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation approach.
Topics: Humans; Bursitis; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Shoulder Pain; Shoulder Joint
PubMed: 37266649
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000033929 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Dipeptidyl-Peptidases and Tripeptidyl-Peptidases; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glucose; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Sodium; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Symporters
PubMed: 34693515
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013650.pub2 -
Annals of Work Exposures and Health Jul 2022Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the number one cause of death, and there is evidence that work exposures could be associated with their development. This study aimed...
INTRODUCTION
Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the number one cause of death, and there is evidence that work exposures could be associated with their development. This study aimed to systematically review observational studies of adults exposed to job strain, effort-reward imbalance, long working hours, job insecurity, shift work, and occupational noise, and assess the association of those work exposures with CVDs.
METHODS
The Navigation Guide framework was applied. The population were adults of working age (18-65), and cohort and case-control studies were included. The work exposures were job strain, effort-reward imbalance, long working hours, job insecurity, shift work, and occupational noise. The outcomes were cerebrovascular diseases, ischaemic heart disease, and hypertensive diseases. The selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality assessment were carried out by two reviewers independently and disagreements were solved by a third reviewer or by consensus. The synthesis of the results was done by applying the 'vote counting based on direction' method, and the results were summarized in an effect direction plot. The strength of the evidence for every risk factor and CVD was defined by consensus.
RESULTS
A total of 17 643 papers were initially identified in the literature search, but after applying the filters by title and abstract, and full text, 86 studies were finally included. From the included studies, sufficient evidence was found of the harmfulness of job strain for cerebrovascular disease and ischemic heart disease. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence of the harmfulness of shift work for ischemic heart disease. Evidence of no relationship was found between long working hours and shift work with ischaemic heart disease and hypertensive disease, respectively. The other associations of work exposures and CVDs had limited or inadequate evidence of harmfulness.
CONCLUSIONS
In this comprehensive review, there was sufficient evidence of a harmful relationship between job strain, shift work, and CVDs. For the other work exposures, more high-quality studies are needed. In order to improve current prevention strategies for CVDs, the findings of this review imply that job strain and shift work are work exposures that constitute additional risk factors that could be approached as targets for worksite interventions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020179972.
Topics: Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Myocardial Ischemia; Noise, Occupational; Observational Studies as Topic; Occupational Exposure; Workplace
PubMed: 35237787
DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac004 -
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia Nov 2015Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with an unfavorable prognosis, increasing the risk of stroke and death. Although... (Review)
Review
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with an unfavorable prognosis, increasing the risk of stroke and death. Although traditionally associated with cardiovascular diseases, there is increasing evidence of high incidence of AF in patients with highly prevalent noncardiovascular diseases, such as cancer, sepsis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obstructive sleep apnea and chronic kidney disease. Therefore, considerable number of patients has been affected by these comorbidities, leading to an increased risk of adverse outcomes.The authors performed a systematic review of the literature aiming to better elucidate the interaction between these conditions.Several mechanisms seem to contribute to the concomitant presence of AF and noncardiovascular diseases. Comorbidities, advanced age, autonomic dysfunction, electrolyte disturbance and inflammation are common to these conditions and may predispose to AF.The treatment of AF in these patients represents a clinical challenge, especially in terms of antithrombotic therapy, since the scores for stratification of thromboembolic risk, such as the CHADS2 and CHA2DS2VASc scores, and the scores for hemorrhagic risk, like the HAS-BLED score have limitations when applied in these conditions.The evidence in this area is still scarce and further investigations to elucidate aspects like epidemiology, pathogenesis, prevention and treatment of AF in noncardiovascular diseases are still needed.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Female; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Risk Factors; Sepsis; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive
PubMed: 26577719
DOI: 10.5935/abc.20150142 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017People with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) frequently are symptomatic and present to the emergency department for treatment. Although vagal manoeuvres may terminate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) frequently are symptomatic and present to the emergency department for treatment. Although vagal manoeuvres may terminate SVT, they often fail, and subsequently adenosine or calcium channel antagonists (CCAs) are administered. Both are known to be effective, but both have a significant side effect profile. This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2006.
OBJECTIVES
To review all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare effects of adenosine versus CCAs in terminating SVT.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers in July 2017. We checked bibliographies of identified studies and applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include all RCTs that compare adenosine versus a CCA for patients of any age presenting with SVT.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently checked results of searches to identify relevant studies and resolved differences by discussion with a third review author. At least two review authors independently assessed each included study and extracted study data. We entered extracted data into Review Manager 5. Primary outcomes were rate of reversion to sinus rhythm and major adverse effects of adenosine and CCAs. Secondary outcomes were rate of recurrence, time to reversion, and minor adverse outcomes. We measured outcomes by calculating odds ratios (ORs) and assessed the quality of primary outcomes using the GRADE approach through the GRADEproGDT website.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two new studies for inclusion in the review update; the review now includes seven trials with 622 participants who presented to an emergency department with SVT. All included studies were RCTs, but only three described the randomisation process, and none had blinded participants, personnel, or outcome assessors to the intervention given. Moderate-quality evidence shows no differences in the number of people reverting to sinus rhythm who were treated with adenosine or CCA (89.7% vs 92.9%; OR 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.68; participants = 622; studies = 7; I = 36%). Low-quality evidence suggests no appreciable differences in major adverse event rates between CCAs and adenosine. Researchers reported only one case of hypotension in the CCA group and none in the adenosine group (0.66% vs 0%; OR 3.09, 95% CI 0.12 to 76.71; participants = 306; studies = 3; I = 0%). Included trials did not report length of stay in hospital nor patient satisfaction.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-quality evidence shows no differences in effects of adenosine and calcium channel antagonists for treatment of SVT on reverting to sinus rhythm, and low-quality evidence suggests no appreciable differences in the incidence of hypotension. A study comparing patient experiences and prospectively studied adverse events would provide evidence on which treatment is preferable for management of SVT.
Topics: Adenosine; Adult; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Emergency Service, Hospital; Humans; Hypotension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tachycardia, Supraventricular; Verapamil
PubMed: 29025197
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005154.pub4 -
Journal of Translational Medicine Feb 2024Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has been demonstrated to predict the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in various cancers. However, the role of TMB in head... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tumor mutational burden (TMB) has been demonstrated to predict the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in various cancers. However, the role of TMB in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) has not yet been specifically addressed. Since HNSCC patients exhibit a rather limited response to ICIs, there is an unmet need to develop predictive biomarkers to improve patient selection criteria and the clinical benefit of ICI treatment.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. HNSCC cohort studies were selected when TMB prior to ICI treatment was evaluated, TMB cutoff value was available, and the prognostic value of TMB was evaluated by time-to-event survival analysis. A total of 11 out of 1960 articles were analyzed, including 1200 HNSCC patients.
RESULTS
The results showed that those patients harboring high TMB exhibited a significantly superior overall response rate (OR = 2.62; 95% CI 1.74-3.94; p < 0.0001) and a survival advantage (HR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.39-0.71; p < 0.0001) after ICI treatment.
CONCLUSION
This is the first meta-analysis to demonstrate a higher response and clinical benefit from ICI therapy in HNSCC patients with high TMB.
Topics: Humans; Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck; Prognosis; Immunotherapy; Survival Analysis; Biomarkers, Tumor; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Mutation
PubMed: 38311741
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-024-04937-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop refractory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Most people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic drug, but up to 30% develop refractory epilepsy, especially those with partial seizures. In this review we summarize the current evidence regarding oxcarbazepine when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of oxcarbazepine when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialized Register (28 March 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2006). No language restrictions were imposed. We checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for additional reports of relevant studies. We also contacted Novartis (manufacturers of oxcarbazepine) and experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, add-on trials of oxcarbazepine in patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. The following outcomes were assessed : (a) 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; (b) treatment withdrawal (any reason); (c) side effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. Summary odds ratios were estimated for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials were included representing 961 randomized patients.Overall Odds Ratio (OR) (95% Confidence Interval (CIs)) for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo 2.96 (2.20, 4.00).Treatment withdrawal OR (95% CIs) compared to placebo 2.17 (1.59, 2.97).Side effects: OR (99% CIs) compared to placebo, ataxia 2.93 (1.72, 4.99); dizziness 3.05 (1.99, 4.67); fatigue 1.80 (1.02, 3.19); nausea 2.88 (1.77, 4.69); somnolence 2.55 (1.84, 3.55); diplopia 4.32 (2.65, 7.04), were significantly associated with oxcarbazepine.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Oxcarbazepine has efficacy as an add-on treatment in patients with drug-resistant partial epilepsy, both in adults and children. However, trials reviewed were of relatively short duration, and provide no evidence about the long-term effects of oxcarbazepine. Results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to patients with other epilepsy types.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Child; Drug Resistance; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epilepsies, Partial; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Oxcarbazepine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27845825
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002028.pub2 -
Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia :... Jun 2015International guidelines exclude athletes with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) from participating in sports, except those of low intensity (category IA,... (Review)
Review
International guidelines exclude athletes with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) from participating in sports, except those of low intensity (category IA, such as golf, billiards or bowling). However, these guidelines are based on expert consensus, and thus the safety and risks of participating in sports in this population are still largely unknown in the medical community. We performed a systematic review of the literature in PubMed using the following search string: "((sudden cardiac death) AND (sport OR physical exercise)) AND defibrillator". After the application of pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 36 results were selected, which are explored in this paper. Preliminary results on ICD use in this population appear to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the device in this context. Further studies, with longer follow-up and with larger samples, may provide stronger evidence to support these findings. In the meantime, disqualifying almost all ICD patients from participating in sports, without taking into consideration their individual needs and characteristics, may be prejudicial to a considerable number of patients by preventing them from exercising their profession or engaging in recreational sport, for which their risk of sudden cardiac death may be low.
Topics: Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Defibrillators, Implantable; Humans; Sports
PubMed: 26050225
DOI: 10.1016/j.repc.2014.11.007