4.6 Review

Fluoroquinolones and the risk of aortopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 274, 期 -, 页码 299-302

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.09.067

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate the association between fluoroquinolones use and development of aortopathy. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines for reporting systematic reviews of observational studies. Multiple databases were searched and two authors independently screened studies for eligibility. Newcastle Ottawa scale was used to assessed the quality of included studies. Primary outcome of interest was development of aortic aneurysm or dissection among fluoroquinolones users in comparison to non-users. An inverse variance model meta-analysis was used to pool odds ratio or hazards ratio from included studies to calculate the overall effect estimate. Pre specified subgroups analyses were also conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity. Results: Three observational studies that enrolled 941,639 subjects met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. All studies were of a good methodological quality. Current use of fluoroquinolones, defined as within 60 days from development of the primary outcome, was associated with significantly elevated risk of developing aortic aneurysm and/or dissection in comparison to controls, (OR = 2.04; 95% CI [1.67, 2.48]). There was only a mild degree of between study heterogeneity, I-2 = 33%. The association remains robust among all subgroups analyses. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that current fluoroquinolone use was significantly associated with increased risk of aortic aneurysm and dissection. Health care providers need to be aware of this serious association and use fluoroquinolones judiciously in order to minimize the risk of the serious sequela of aortopathy. (c) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据