RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Comparison of iso-osmolar contrast media (IOCM) and low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) for vascular attenuation, image quality, heart rate changes, and common patient discomfort symptoms. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). We included only randomized controlled trials. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were done by three independent authors. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nine studies (n = 1831 participants) were found eligible and included in the meta-analysis. There was no difference between the both contrast media for vascular attenuation (mean difference = -21.31; 95% confidence interval -49.81 to 7.19; p = 0.14), image quality (standardized mean difference = 0.13; 95% confidence interval -0.07 to 0.33; p = 0.19), heart rate variability (standardized mean difference = -0.61; 95% confidence interval -1.30 to 0.09; p = 0.09), heat sensation (risk ratio = 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.11; p = 0.17), and nausea or vomiting (risk ratio = 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.28; p = 0.38). Moreover, IOCM resulted in a heart rate that was lower by 0.9 beat per minute (bpm) compared to LOCM (mean difference = -0.92; 95% confidence interval -1.81 to -0.03; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Both IOCM and LOCM have similar vascular enhancement, image quality, heart rate variability, and similar risk for patient discomfort. Furthermore, IOCM resulted in a slightly lower heart rate by 0.9 bpm.
Asunto(s)
Angiografía por Tomografía Computarizada/métodos , Frecuencia Cardíaca , Medios de Contraste , Angiografía Coronaria/métodos , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oportunidad Relativa , Concentración Osmolar , Ácidos TriyodobenzoicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although cutting electrocautery can be superior to the scalpel in reducing blood loss and incisional time, several reports associated electrocautery with higher rates of wound infection, impaired healing, and worse cosmesis. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare cutting electrocautery versus scalpel for surgical incisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a computerized literature search of five electronic databases and included all published original studies comparing cutting electrocautery and scalpel surgical incisions. Relevant data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as odds ratios (ORs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) values in a meta-analysis model, using RevMan and Comprehensive Meta-analysis software. RESULTS: Forty-one studies (36 randomized trials, four observational, and one quasirandom study) were included in the pooled analysis (6422 participants). Compared with the scalpel incision, cutting electrocautery resulted in significantly less blood loss (SMD = -1.16, 95% CI [-1.60 to -0.72]), shorter incisional (SMD = -0.63, 95% CI [-0.96 to -0.29]) and operative times (SMD = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.12 to -0.05]), and lower pain scores (SMD = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.27 to -0.55]) with no significant differences in terms of wound infection rates (OR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.74-1.15]) or overall subjective scar score (SMD = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.72 to 0.75]). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical incision using electrocautery can be quicker with less blood loss and postoperative pain scores than the scalpel incision. No statistically significant difference was found between both techniques in terms of postoperative wound complications, hospital stay duration, and wound cosmetic characteristics. Therefore, we recommend routine use of cutting electrocautery for surgical incisions.