Release of cardiac biochemical markers after percutaneous myocardial laser or sham procedures

Salem, Mohammed; Rotevatn, Svein; Stavnes, Sindre; Brekke, Magne; Pettersen, Reidar J.; Kuiper, Karel Kier-Jan; Ulvik, Rune J.; Nordrehaug, Jan Erik

doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2004.10.050

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 80–90 Many (22) of the studies involved endoscopic or percutaneous procedures in which tissue was removed or altered or a material (eg, dye, cement, balloon) was inserted. 11–13 28 31 34 38 40–43 52 54 56 61 63 65 67 77–79 90 Some of these procedures used a catheter to reach an internal organ (such as the heart or gall bladder) or a needle to inject a material or cell (often into the lumbar spine or brain). 27 29 30 32 53 55 57 59 60 62 64 66 85 89 Five studies evaluated more classical surgical procedures in which the body was opened with a scalpel or drill.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess the quantity and quality of randomised, sham-controlled studies of surgery and invasive procedures and estimate the treatment-specific and non-specific effects of those procedures.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), PILOTS, PsycInfo, DoD Biomedical Research, clinicaltrials.gov, NLM catalog and NIH Grantee Publications Database from their inception through January 2015.Study selectionWe included randomised controlled trials of surgery and invasive procedures that penetrated the skin or an orifice and had a parallel sham procedure for comparison.Data extraction and analysisThree authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Studies reporting continuous outcomes were pooled and the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs was calculated using a random effects model for difference between true and sham groups.Results55 studies (3574 patients) were identified meeting inclusion criteria; 39 provided sufficient data for inclusion in the main analysis (2902 patients). The overall SMD of the continuous primary outcome between treatment/sham-control groups was 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.49; p<0.00001; I2=67%). The SMD for surgery versus sham surgery was non-significant for pain-related conditions (n=15, SMD=0.13, p=0.08), marginally significant for studies on weight loss (n=10, SMD=0.52, p=0.05) and significant for gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD) studies (n=5, SMD=0.65, p<0.001) and for other conditions (n=8, SMD=0.44, p=0.004). Mean improvement in sham groups relative to active treatment was larger in pain-related conditions (78%) and obesity (71%) than in GERD (57%) and other conditions (57%), and was smaller in classical-surgery trials (21%) than in endoscopic trials (73%) and those using percutaneous procedures (64%).ConclusionsThe non-specific effects of surgery and other invasive procedures are generally large. Particularly in the field of pain-related conditions, more evidence from randomised placebo-controlled trials is needed to avoid continuation of ineffective treatments.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The procedures used included arthroscopic surgery or irrigation [14,30–32], heart catheterization with laser treatment or septal repair [35–37,48], endoscopic sphincterectomy [39,46,47], percutaneous or open neurectomy (mechanical or via radiofrequency) [25,26,28,29,40,49], laparoscopic surgery or laser treatment [38,43–45], vertebroblasty [12,13], intradisc delivery of electrothermal energy [27], and surgical ligation of internal mammary arteries [33,34]. All control groups used a parallel sham procedure mimicking the active procedure.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Invasive Procedures Effective for Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review

Jonas¹,

Crawford²,

Colloca

et al. 2018

Pain Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is little evidence for the specific efficacy beyond sham for invasive procedures in chronic pain. A moderate amount of evidence does not support the use of invasive procedures as compared with sham procedures for patients with chronic back or knee pain. Given their high cost and safety concerns, more rigorous studies are required before invasive procedures are routinely used for patients with chronic pain.

show abstract

Transmyocardial laser revascularization versus medical therapy for refractory angina

Briones¹,

Lacalle-Remigio²,

Marin³

2009

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Release of cardiac biochemical markers after percutaneous myocardial laser or sham procedures

Cited by 8 publications

References 34 publications

To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials

To what extent are surgery and invasive procedures effective beyond a placebo response? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised, sham controlled trials

Are Invasive Procedures Effective for Chronic Pain? A Systematic Review

Transmyocardial laser revascularization versus medical therapy for refractory angina

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About