Oxygen Administration Does Not Influence the Prognosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis

Abdur Rahman Khan, Aref Bin Abdulhak, Faraz Khan Luni, Talha A. Farid, Haris Riaz, Mohammed Ruzieh, Long Pham, Glenn Hirsch, Roberto Bolli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND:: The safety and efficacy of supplemental oxygen in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. STUDY QUESTION:: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of supplemental oxygen in patients who present with AMI. DATA SOURCES:: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and conference proceedings from inception through January 2016. STUDY DESIGN:: Eligible studies were randomized trials that evaluated the role of oxygen compared with room air in AMI. The clinical outcome measured was 30-day mortality, and odds ratio (OR) was calculated for the measured outcome. The Mantel–Haenszel method was used to pool 30-day mortality in a random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of revascularization of the culprit artery on the outcome. RESULTS:: The pooled analysis suggested no difference in 30-day mortality [OR 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30–4.00; P = 0.89] between oxygen and room air. Metaregression demonstrated that all the between-study variance was because of coronary revascularization (P = 0.01, R = 1.0). A subgroup analysis suggested a trend toward increased mortality with oxygen (OR 3.26; 95% CI, 0.94–11.29; P = 0.06) when less than half of the patient population underwent revascularization. On the other hand, there was a nonsignificant numerical decrease in mortality with oxygen (OR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.14–1.19; P = 0.10) in the presence of coronary revascularization. Metaregression confirmed that all the between-study variance was because of coronary revascularization (P = 0.01, R = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS:: In this meta-analysis, we found that the evidence on the safety and efficacy of oxygen was not only weak and inconsistent but also had modest statistical power. The variation in results was mainly because of the presence or absence of revascularization of the culprit artery. Adequately powered studies are needed to further delineate the role of oxygen in patients undergoing coronary revascularization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Therapeutics
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Nov 2 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Myocardial Infarction
Oxygen
Odds Ratio
Mortality
Confidence Intervals
Safety
Arteries
Air
PubMed
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Oxygen Administration Does Not Influence the Prognosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction : A Meta-Analysis. / Khan, Abdur Rahman; Abdulhak, Aref Bin; Luni, Faraz Khan; Farid, Talha A.; Riaz, Haris; Ruzieh, Mohammed; Pham, Long; Hirsch, Glenn; Bolli, Roberto.

In: American Journal of Therapeutics, 02.11.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Khan, Abdur Rahman ; Abdulhak, Aref Bin ; Luni, Faraz Khan ; Farid, Talha A. ; Riaz, Haris ; Ruzieh, Mohammed ; Pham, Long ; Hirsch, Glenn ; Bolli, Roberto. / Oxygen Administration Does Not Influence the Prognosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction : A Meta-Analysis. In: American Journal of Therapeutics. 2016.
@article{665a749c4efa46afb22aa3fa400a02df,
title = "Oxygen Administration Does Not Influence the Prognosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis",
abstract = "BACKGROUND:: The safety and efficacy of supplemental oxygen in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. STUDY QUESTION:: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of supplemental oxygen in patients who present with AMI. DATA SOURCES:: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and conference proceedings from inception through January 2016. STUDY DESIGN:: Eligible studies were randomized trials that evaluated the role of oxygen compared with room air in AMI. The clinical outcome measured was 30-day mortality, and odds ratio (OR) was calculated for the measured outcome. The Mantel–Haenszel method was used to pool 30-day mortality in a random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of revascularization of the culprit artery on the outcome. RESULTS:: The pooled analysis suggested no difference in 30-day mortality [OR 1.09; 95{\%} confidence interval (CI), 0.30–4.00; P = 0.89] between oxygen and room air. Metaregression demonstrated that all the between-study variance was because of coronary revascularization (P = 0.01, R = 1.0). A subgroup analysis suggested a trend toward increased mortality with oxygen (OR 3.26; 95{\%} CI, 0.94–11.29; P = 0.06) when less than half of the patient population underwent revascularization. On the other hand, there was a nonsignificant numerical decrease in mortality with oxygen (OR 0.41; 95{\%} CI, 0.14–1.19; P = 0.10) in the presence of coronary revascularization. Metaregression confirmed that all the between-study variance was because of coronary revascularization (P = 0.01, R = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS:: In this meta-analysis, we found that the evidence on the safety and efficacy of oxygen was not only weak and inconsistent but also had modest statistical power. The variation in results was mainly because of the presence or absence of revascularization of the culprit artery. Adequately powered studies are needed to further delineate the role of oxygen in patients undergoing coronary revascularization.",
author = "Khan, {Abdur Rahman} and Abdulhak, {Aref Bin} and Luni, {Faraz Khan} and Farid, {Talha A.} and Haris Riaz and Mohammed Ruzieh and Long Pham and Glenn Hirsch and Roberto Bolli",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1097/MJT.0000000000000475",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "American Journal of Therapeutics",
issn = "1075-2765",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Oxygen Administration Does Not Influence the Prognosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction

T2 - A Meta-Analysis

AU - Khan, Abdur Rahman

AU - Abdulhak, Aref Bin

AU - Luni, Faraz Khan

AU - Farid, Talha A.

AU - Riaz, Haris

AU - Ruzieh, Mohammed

AU - Pham, Long

AU - Hirsch, Glenn

AU - Bolli, Roberto

PY - 2016/11/2

Y1 - 2016/11/2

N2 - BACKGROUND:: The safety and efficacy of supplemental oxygen in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. STUDY QUESTION:: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of supplemental oxygen in patients who present with AMI. DATA SOURCES:: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and conference proceedings from inception through January 2016. STUDY DESIGN:: Eligible studies were randomized trials that evaluated the role of oxygen compared with room air in AMI. The clinical outcome measured was 30-day mortality, and odds ratio (OR) was calculated for the measured outcome. The Mantel–Haenszel method was used to pool 30-day mortality in a random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of revascularization of the culprit artery on the outcome. RESULTS:: The pooled analysis suggested no difference in 30-day mortality [OR 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30–4.00; P = 0.89] between oxygen and room air. Metaregression demonstrated that all the between-study variance was because of coronary revascularization (P = 0.01, R = 1.0). A subgroup analysis suggested a trend toward increased mortality with oxygen (OR 3.26; 95% CI, 0.94–11.29; P = 0.06) when less than half of the patient population underwent revascularization. On the other hand, there was a nonsignificant numerical decrease in mortality with oxygen (OR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.14–1.19; P = 0.10) in the presence of coronary revascularization. Metaregression confirmed that all the between-study variance was because of coronary revascularization (P = 0.01, R = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS:: In this meta-analysis, we found that the evidence on the safety and efficacy of oxygen was not only weak and inconsistent but also had modest statistical power. The variation in results was mainly because of the presence or absence of revascularization of the culprit artery. Adequately powered studies are needed to further delineate the role of oxygen in patients undergoing coronary revascularization.

AB - BACKGROUND:: The safety and efficacy of supplemental oxygen in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. STUDY QUESTION:: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of supplemental oxygen in patients who present with AMI. DATA SOURCES:: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and conference proceedings from inception through January 2016. STUDY DESIGN:: Eligible studies were randomized trials that evaluated the role of oxygen compared with room air in AMI. The clinical outcome measured was 30-day mortality, and odds ratio (OR) was calculated for the measured outcome. The Mantel–Haenszel method was used to pool 30-day mortality in a random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of revascularization of the culprit artery on the outcome. RESULTS:: The pooled analysis suggested no difference in 30-day mortality [OR 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30–4.00; P = 0.89] between oxygen and room air. Metaregression demonstrated that all the between-study variance was because of coronary revascularization (P = 0.01, R = 1.0). A subgroup analysis suggested a trend toward increased mortality with oxygen (OR 3.26; 95% CI, 0.94–11.29; P = 0.06) when less than half of the patient population underwent revascularization. On the other hand, there was a nonsignificant numerical decrease in mortality with oxygen (OR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.14–1.19; P = 0.10) in the presence of coronary revascularization. Metaregression confirmed that all the between-study variance was because of coronary revascularization (P = 0.01, R = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS:: In this meta-analysis, we found that the evidence on the safety and efficacy of oxygen was not only weak and inconsistent but also had modest statistical power. The variation in results was mainly because of the presence or absence of revascularization of the culprit artery. Adequately powered studies are needed to further delineate the role of oxygen in patients undergoing coronary revascularization.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995426868&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84995426868&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MJT.0000000000000475

DO - 10.1097/MJT.0000000000000475

M3 - Article

C2 - 27846023

AN - SCOPUS:84995426868

JO - American Journal of Therapeutics

JF - American Journal of Therapeutics

SN - 1075-2765

ER -