Key result
Immunosuppressive treatment significantly reduced the rate of death or heart transplantation (9.4% vs 35.6%) compared to conventional treatment in pediatric patients with acute myocarditis.
Why the study?
The use of immunosuppressants for the treatment of myocarditis in children remains controversial.
Does immunosuppressive treatment improve left ventricular function and reduce the risk of death or heart transplant in pediatric patients with acute myocarditis?
Meta-Analysis (n=380)
Does immunosuppressive treatment improve left ventricular function and reduce the risk of death or heart transplant in pediatric patients with acute myocarditis?
Relative Risk: 4.74 (95% CI 2.69–8.35)
Absolute Event Rate: 9.4% vs 35.6%
Immunosuppressive treatment in pediatric patients with acute myocarditis is associated with improved left ventricular ejection fraction and a significantly lower risk of death or heart transplantation.
Immunosuppressive therapy may reduce death or transplant risk in pediatric myocarditis; leaves open need for confirmatory RCTs.
The use of immunosuppressants in the treatment of myocarditis in children remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to summarize the current empirical evidence for immunosuppressive treatment for myocarditis in the pediatric population. We searched the Pubmed, MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles to identify studies analyzing the efficiency of immunosuppressive treatment in the pediatric population. Pooled estimates were generated using fixed or random-effect models. Heterogeneity within studies was assessed using Cochran's Q and I2 statistics. Funnel plots and Begg's rank correlation method were constructed to evaluate publication bias. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to evaluate the potential sources of heterogeneity. After a detailed screening of 159 studies, six separate studies were identified, with 181 patients in the immunosuppressive treatment group and 199 in the conventional treatment group. The immunosuppressive treatment group showed a significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)[mean difference 1.10, 95% CI :0.41, 1.79] and significantly decreased left ventricular end diastolic dimension (LVEDD)[mean difference -0.77mm, 95% CI :-1.35 to -0.20mm] when compared to the conventional treatment group. Furthermore, the risk of death and heart transplant in conventional treatment was significantly higher than immunosuppressive treatment group (RR:4.74; 95%CI:2.69, 8.35). No significant heterogeneity across the studies was observed. There was no evidence of publication bias when assessed by Begg's test. Conclusions: There may be a possible benefit, in the short term, to the addition of immunosuppressive therapy in the management of myocarditis in the pediaatric population. However, further prospective investigation is warranted to the validate this finding.Children with myocarditis seem to benefit from immunosuppressive therapy. Immunosuppressive treatment of acute myocarditis in the pediatric population is associated with improved recovery of left ventricular function and with a tendency to better survival.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in Acute myocarditis (n=380). Immunosuppressive treatment vs. Conventional treatment was evaluated on Death or heart transplantation (RR 4.74, 95% CI 2.69, 8.35). Immunosuppressive treatment significantly reduced the rate of death or heart transplantation (9.4% vs 35.6%) compared to conventional treatment in pediatric patients with acute myocarditis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: