4.5 Review

Corticosteroids and Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Pediatric Myocarditis: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2019.00342

关键词

myocarditis; children; corticosteroid; intravenous immunoglobulin; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The efficacy of corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in pediatric myocarditis remains controversial. Objectives: The authors performed a meta-analysis to assess the therapeutic efficacy of corticosteroids and IVIG in children with myocarditis. Methods: We retrieved the trials on corticosteroids and IVIG therapy, respectively, in pediatric myocarditis from nine databases up to December 2018. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Our analysis included 8 studies and 334 pediatric patients. The data demonstrated that children receiving corticosteroids showed no significant improvement on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from 1 to 8 month-follow-up (MD = 5.17%, 95% CI = -0.26% to 10.60%, P = 0.06), and no significant improvement in death or heart transplantation incidence at the end of follow-up (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.27-6.70, P = 0.73). However, children receiving IVIG revealed a statistically remarkable increase in LVEF at a follow-up over the course of 6 months to 1 year (MD = 18.91%, 95% CI = 11.74-26.08%, P < 0.00001), and a decrease in death or heart transplantation at the end of follow-up (OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.12-0.75, P = 0.01). Further comparisons showed that the mortality and heart transplantation rate of children with myocarditis treated with IVIG were significantly lower than those with corticosteroid therapy (t' = 11.336, P < 0.001). Conclusions: IVIG might be beneficial to improve LVEF and survival for myocarditis in children. However, the present evidence does not support corticosteroids as superior to conventional therapy in children with myocarditis. Further randomized controlled trials with a larger sample size are required.

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

4.5
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