Prokop, Larry J.

Background— Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common finding in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). Atrial fibrillation is not generally perceived by clinicians as a critical event during the acute phase of MI; however, its prognostic influence in MI remains controversial. Furthermore, contradictory data exist concerning the risk of death according to AF timing. This article, a systematic review and first meta-analysis, aims to quantify the mortality risk associated with AF in MI patients and its timing. Methods and Results— A comprehensive search of several electronic databases (1970 to 2010; adults, any language) identified MI studies that evaluated mortality related to AF. Evidence was reviewed by 2 blinded reviewers with a formal assessment of the methodological quality of the studies. Adjusted odds ratios were pooled across studies using the random-effects model. The I 2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. In the 43 included studies (278 854 subjects), the mortality odds ratio associated with AF was 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.35 to 1.58; I 2 =76%; 23 studies). This worse prognosis persisted regardless of the timing of AF; the odds ratio of mortality for new AF with no prior history of AF was 1.37 (95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 1.49), I 2 =28%, 9 studies), and for prior AF was 1.28 (95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 1.40; I 2 =24%; 4 studies). The sensitivity analysis of new AF studies adjusting for confounding factors did not show a decrease in risk of death. Conclusions— Atrial fibrillation is associated with increased risk of mortality in MI patients. New AF with no history of AF before MI remained associated with an increased risk of mortality even after adjustment for several important AF risk factors. These subsequent increases in mortality suggest that AF can no longer be considered a nonsevere event during MI.

Purpose Despite widespread popular use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, a rigorous evidence base about their efficacy for cancer-related pain is lacking. This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CAM therapies for cancer-related pain. Methods RCTs using CAM interventions for cancer-related pain were abstracted using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and Cochrane database. Results Eighteen trials were identified (eight poor, three intermediate, and seven high quality based on Jadad score), with a total of 1,499 patients. Median sample size was 53 patients, and median intervention duration was 45 days. All studies were from single institutions, four had sample size justification, and none reported any adverse effects. Seven trials reported significant benefit for the following CAM therapies: acupuncture (n = 1), support groups (n = 2), hypnosis (n = 1), relaxation/imagery (n = 2), and herbal supplement/HESA-A (n = 1, but study was of low quality without control data). Seven studies reported immediate postintervention or short-term benefit of the following CAM interventions: acupuncture (n = 2), music (n = 1), herbal supplement/Ai-Tong-Ping (n = 1), massage (n = 1), and healing touch (n = 2). Four studies reported no benefit of CAM interventions (music, n = 2; massage, n = 2) in reducing cancer pain compared with a control arm. Conclusion There is paucity of multi-institutional RCTs evaluating CAM interventions for cancer pain with adequate power, duration, and sham control. Hypnosis, imagery, support groups, acupuncture, and healing touch seem promising, particularly in the short term, but none can be recommended because of a paucity of rigorous trials. Future research should focus on methodologically strong RCTs to determine potential efficacy of these CAM interventions.