Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Background Adhesive capsulitis is one of the most well-known causes of pain and stiffness of the shoulder. Corticosteroid injections have been used for many years. However, it is still controversial where corticosteroid should be injected, whether subacromial or intra-articular. Objective The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of intra-articular (IA) and subacromial (SA) corticosteroid injections for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis. Materials and Methods Four foreign databases and two Chinese databases were searched for RCTs and quasi-RCTs involving the comparison of IA and SA corticosteroid injection for the treatment of adhesive capsulitis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and PEDro score were used to evaluate the quality of the studies. The primary clinical outcomes including VAS, Constant score, ASES score, and ROM were collected. The secondary outcome of corticosteroid-related adverse reactions was also compared between the two groups. The results were evaluated and compared at five time points. Subgroup analyses were performed to further explore the differences between groups. Results Eight RCTs and one quasi-RCT, involving 512 participants, were identified and included in this meta-analysis. All studies were of low risk of bias and medium-high quality with the PEDro score ≥5 points. The pooled effect showed that there was no significant difference in the primary outcomes between IA injection and SA injection, with an exception of VAS at 2-3 weeks (P=0.02) and ROM of internal rotation at 8–12 weeks (P=0.02). According to the results of subgroup analyses, the differences of VAS and ROM of internal rotation did not last beyond the 2-3-week time period. Additionally, SA injection had the advantage of avoiding adverse reactions from the corticosteroid, especially in avoiding a large fluctuation of serum blood glucose levels. Conclusions When corticosteroid injection is used to treat adhesive capsulitis, both injection sites can be selected. However, due to the scarcity of related studies, more rigorous trials are needed to confirm the current findings.

Background: Although mitral valve repair (MVP) is generally accepted as the standard treatment for mitral valve disease, in older patients, there is increasing debate about whether MVP is superior to mitral valve replacement (MVR). We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis to compare MVP vs. MVR in the elderly population. 0.56-0.86). In addition, our study also demonstrated improved 1-year (RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.08-1.24) and 5-year (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.13-1.41) survival rates following MVP. There was no difference in reoperations between these two surgery approaches. Conclusions:The present meta-analysis indicates that elderly patients who receive MVP have better early and late outcomes than those undergoing MVR. MVP may be the preferred strategy for mitral valve surgery in the elderly population.

Although elevated resting heart rate is related to poor outcomes in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, the association in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains inconclusive. Therefore, we conducted a dose–response meta-analysis to examine the prognostic role of heart rate in patients with HFpEF.We searched PubMed and Embase databases until April 2017 and manually reviewed the reference lists of relevant literatures. Random effect models were used to pool the study-specific hazard ratio (HR) of outcomes, including all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and HF hospitalization.Six studies with 7 reports were finally included, totaling 14,054 patients with HFpEF. The summary HR (95% confidence interval [CI]) for every 10 beats/minute increment in heart rate was 1.04 (1.02–1.06) for all-cause death, 1.06 (1.02–1.10) for cardiovascular death, and 1.05 (1.01–1.08) for HF hospitalization. Subgroup analyses indicated that these positive relationships were significant in patients with sinus rhythm but not in those with atrial fibrillation. There was also evidence for nonlinear relationship of heart rate with each of the outcomes (All P for nonlinearity < .05).Higher heart rate in sinus rhythm is a risk factor for adverse outcomes in patients with HFpEF. Future trials are required to determine whether heart rate reduction may improve the prognosis of HFpEF.