Table 7 Results of myocardial infarction
From: General vs. neuraxial anaesthesia in hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Author/Reference | Study type | Anaesthesia | Sample size | Outcome parameter | Results | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Basques et al. 2015 [8] | Retrospective observational study | GA vs. SA | n = 9.842 GA = 7.253 (73.7%) SA = 2.589 (26.3%) | Myocardial infarction | SA vs. GA: 1.9% vs. 1.9%; OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.39, p = 0.510 | The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar in the two groups. |
Biboulet et al. 2012 [32] | Randomised controlled study | GA vs. SA (propofol, sevoflurane) | n = 45 GA = 30 SA = 15 | Myocardial infarction | SA vs. GA: 0 vs. 1, p = 1.0 | The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar between the two groups. |
Chu et al. 2015 [25] | Retrospective observational study | GA vs. NA (spinal/epidural) | n = 104.088 GA = 52.044 NA = 52.044 | Myocardial infarction | NA vs. GA: 169 (0.32%) vs. 188 (0.36%), p = 0.31 | The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar between the two groups. |
Fields et al. 2010 [9] | Retrospective observational study | GA vs. SA | n = 6.133 GA = 4.318 (72.6%) SA = 1.815 (27.4%) | Myocardial infarction | SA vs. NA: 1.71% vs. 1.75%, p = 0.92 | The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar between the two groups. |
Heidari et al. 2011 [33] | Randomised controlled study | GA vs. NA (EA/SA) | n = 270 GA = 197 NA = 190 | Myocardial infarction | NA vs. GA: 1 (0.6%) vs. 1 (0.5%), | The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar between the two groups. |
Neuman et al. 2012 [27] | Retrospective observational study | GA vs. NA | n = 18.158 GA = 12.904 NA = 5.254 | Myocardial infarction | NA vs. GA: 97 (1.9%) vs. 266 (2.1%), p = 0.348 | The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar between the two groups. |
Parker et al. 2015 [31] | Randomised controlled study | GA vs. SA | n = 322 GA = 164 (50.93%) SA = 158 (49.07%) | Myocardial infarction | SA vs. GA: 1 (0.6%) vs. 1 (0.6%), p = 1.0 | The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar between the two groups. |
Seitz et al. 2014 [19] | Retrospective observational study | GA (inhalational, intravenous, GA combined with epidural or local anaesthesia) vs. SA | n = 20.973 GA = 8.818 (42.1%) SA = 12.155 (57.9%) | Myocardial infarction | SA vs. GA: 454 (7.4%) vs. 501 (8.2%), p = 0.07 | The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar between the two groups. |
Tung et al. 2016 [24] | Retrospective observational study | GA vs. RA (epidural/spinal) | n = 17.189 GA = 6.063 (35.1%) NA = 11.153 (64.9%) | Myocardial infarction | NA vs. GA: 10 (0.1%) vs. 10 (0.1%), p = 0.162 | The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar between the two groups. |
Whiting et al. 2015 [22] | Retrospective observational study | GA vs. SA | n = 7.764 GA = 5.840 SA = 1.813 | Myocardial infarction | SA vs. GA: Odds ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.50-1.43, p = 0.532 | The incidence of myocardial infarction was similar between the two groups. |