Objective    To evaluate the early and mid-term safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement via transfemoral (TF), transapical (TAp) and transsubclavian (TSc) approaches by meta-analysis. Methods    We systematically searched the clinical comparative trials published from inception to June 2019 from PubMed, Web of Science, EMbase and The Cochrane Library, to evaluate the safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement through TF, TAp or TSc approaches. The information of all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years and the incidence of common complications at 30 days after operation (including pacemaker-dependent block, major vascular complications, severe bleeding events, acute renal injury and stroke) were exacted, and a meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. Results    This study included 11 literatures, with a total of 7 833 patients, among whom 5 348 patients were treated by TF TAVR, 1 796 patients by TAp TAVR and 689 patients by TSc TAVR. The results of the meta-analysis were as follows: (1)  at 30 days after operation, the mortality of TF and TSc approaches were lower than that of the TAp approach (TF vs. TAp:OR=0.57, 95%CI 0.39-0.84, P=0.004; TSc vs. TAp: OR=4.12, 95%CI 1.93-8.79, P=0.000 3). There was no statistical difference between the TF and TSc approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=0.98, 95%CI 0.38-2.51, P=0.97); at 1 year, there was no statistical difference in mortality among the three approaches (P>0.05); at 2 years, there was no statistical difference between TSc and TF or TAp approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=1.21, 95%CI 0.95-1.54, P=0.13; TSc vs. TAp: OR=1.02, 95%CI 0.76-1.36, P=0.91). (2) The incidence of acute kidney injury after TF approach was lower than that of the TAp approach (OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.22-0.41, P<0.000 01). (3) There was no statistical difference in major vascular complications between TSc and TF or TAp approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=0.75, 95%CI 0.38-1.49, P=0.41; TSc vs. TAp: OR=1.37, 95%CI 0.56-3.32, P=0.49). (4) There was no statistical difference in severe bleeding events between TF and TSc (OR=0.97, 95%CI 0.53-1.76, P=0.92). (5) There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative stroke, pacemaker dependent block among the three approaches (P>0.05). Conclusion    TAp and TSc approaches are safe and effective. They are not only an alternative to TF approach, but also the first choice in some patients with poor condition of iliofemoral artery.

BACKGROUND: Penehyclidine is a newly developed anticholinergic agent. We aimed to investigate the role of penehyclidine in acute organophosphorus pesticide poisoning (OP) patients. METHODS: We searched the Pubmed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical literature (CBM) and Wanfang databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting acute OP patients were identified for meta-analysis. Main outcomesincluded cure rate, mortality rate, time to atropinization, time to 60% normal acetylcholinesterase (AchE) level, rate of intermediate syndrome (IMS) and rate of adverse drug reactions (ADR). RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs involving 1,334 patients were identified. Compared with the atropine-or penehyclidine-alone groups, atropine combined with penehyclidine significantly increased the cure rate (penehyclidine+atropine vs. atropine, 0.97 vs. 0.86, RR 1.13, 95% CI [1.07–1.19]; penehyclidine+atropine vs. penehyclidine, 0.93 vs. 0.80, RR 1.08, 95% CI [1.01–1.15]) and reduced the mortality rate (penehyclidine+atropine vs. atropine, 0.015 vs. 0.11, RR 0.17, 95% CI [0.06–0.49]; penehyclidine+atropine vs. penehyclidine, 0.13 vs. 0.08, RR 0.23, 95% CI [0.04–1.28]). Atropine combined with penehyclidine in OP patients also helped reduce the time to atropinization and AchE recovery, the rate of IMS and the rate of ADR. Compared with a single dose of atropine, a single dose of penehyclidine also significantly elevated the cure rate, reduced times to atropinization, AchE recovery, and rate of IMS. CONCLUSION Atropine combined with penehyclidine benefits OP patients by enhancing the cure rate, mortality rate, time to atropinization, AchE recovery, IMS rate, total ADR and duration of hospitalization. Penehyclidine combined with atropine is likely a better initial therapy for OP patients than atropine alone.