ABO blood group system and the coronary artery disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chen Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4796869 | biostudies-other | 2016 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFollowing the first reports in the literature, the association between the ABO blood group and SARS-CoV-2 infection has been investigated by a number of studies, although with varying results. The main object of this systematic review was to assess the relationship between the ABO blood group and the occurrence and severity of COVID-19.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search using appropriate MeSH terms was performed through Medline and PubMed. The outcomes considered were the prevalence of the blood group O vs non-O types in SARS-CoV-2 infected and non-infected subjects, and the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to ABO group. The methodological quality of the studies included in the analysis was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the overall quality of the available evidence using the GRADE system. Benchmarks used to evaluate the effect size were odd ratios (ORs) for case control studies and risk ratios (RRs) for cohort studies.ResultsTwenty-one studies were included in the analysis. Overall, individuals with group O had a lower infection rate compared to individuals of non-O group (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.86). However, the difference in the effect size was significantly lower in cohort studies compared to case control studies. No evidence was found indicating an effect of the O type on the disease severity in the infected patients.DiscussionWe have found low/very low evidence that group O individuals are less susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to those in the non-O group. No evidence was found indicating an effect of the O type on disease severity in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
| S-EPMC8297670 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: This meta-analysis comprehensively evaluated the association between ABO blood group and the risk of preeclampsia (PE). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: PubMed, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases from their inception to September 23, 2020. Methods: Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained through random-effects and fixed-effects models according to heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis was applied to explore the source of heterogeneity. We conducted a subgroup analysis by the publication year, study design, state, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score. In addition, we calculated the rate of each ABO blood group in PE by total pooled effects. Results: A total of 12 articles with 714,153 patients were included in our analysis. Compared with people without PE (control group), the O blood group presented a lower risk of PE (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.93-0.97). The AB (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.12-1.91) blood group presented a higher risk. However, the total pooled OR and 95% CI for the A (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90-1.16) and B (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98-1.05) blood groups were not significant. The funnel plot and linear regression equation showed that there was no publication bias for the O, A, or B blood groups (all P > 0.05). However, the funnel plot and linear regression equation for the AB blood group were obviously asymmetric (P < 0.05), and the publication bias persisted even after the trim-and-fill method was applied (P < 0.05). Multivariable meta-regression analysis did not find a specific source of heterogeneity. The A blood group showed an association with early-onset PE (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.83), and the other blood groups showed no significant differences. In PE, the rates of the O, A, B, and AB blood groups decreased gradually (0.39, 0.33, 0.19, 0.07). Conclusion: These findings suggest that pregnant women with AB blood group are more likely to develop PE, and more attention should be paid to AB blood group whose blood pressure is high but not sufficient to diagnose PE. Systematic Review Registration: Prospero CRD42021227930.
| S-EPMC8256995 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8661771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Malaria clinical outcomes vary by erythrocyte characteristics, including ABO blood group, but the effect of ABO blood group on asymptomatic, uncomplicated and placental Plasmodium falciparum (P. falciparum) infection remains unclear. We explored effects of ABO blood group on asymptomatic, uncomplicated and placental falciparum infection in the published literature. METHODS:A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Articles in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Library published before February 04, 2017 were searched without restriction. Studies were included if they reported P. falciparum infection incidence or prevalence, stratified by ABO blood group. RESULTS:Of 1923 articles obtained from the five databases (Embase?=?728, PubMed?=?620, Web of Science?=?549, CINAHL?=?14, Cochrane Library?=?12), 42 met criteria for systematic review and 37 for meta-analysis. Most studies (n?=?30) were cross-sectional, seven were prospective cohort, and five were case-control studies. Meta-analysis showed similar odds of uncomplicated P. falciparum infection among individuals with blood group A (summary odds ratio [OR] 0.96, 15 studies), B (OR 0.89, 15 studies), AB (OR 0.85, 10 studies) and non-O (OR 0.95, 17 studies) as compared to those with blood group O. Meta-analysis of four cohort studies also showed similar risk of uncomplicated P. falciparum infection among individuals with blood group non-O and those with blood group O (summary relative risk [RR] 1.03). Meta-analysis of six studies showed similar odds of asymptomatic P. falciparum infection among individuals with blood group A (OR 1.05), B (OR 1.03), AB (OR 1.23), and non-O (OR 1.07) when compared to those with blood group O. However, odds of active placental P. falciparum infection was significantly lower in primiparous women with non-O blood groups (OR 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 - 0.69, I2 0.0%, three studies), particularly in those with blood group A (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.003 - 0.82, I2 1.4%, four studies) than those with blood group O. CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that ABO blood group may not affect susceptibility to asymptomatic and/or uncomplicated P. falciparum infection. However, blood group O primiparous women appear to be more susceptible to active placental P. falciparum infection.
| S-EPMC6346527 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic. Several studies report that ABO blood group polymorphism may be related to COVID-19 susceptibility and clinical outcomes; however, the results are controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether ABO blood groups are associated with increased COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. A total of 715 articles were retrieved from seven databases. Ten articles were selected for meta-analysis after removal of duplicates and two levels of screenings. Overall, individuals with blood group A [odds ratio (OR) = 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.56] and B (OR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13) had a substantially higher risk of COVID-19, whereas this was not the case for blood group AB (OR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30). Individuals with blood group O was not prone to develop the disease (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.84). Moreover, the risk of COVID-19 was significantly associated with the Rh-positive blood group (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.50). A meta-analysis of 5 studies suggested that blood group A was associated with a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 mortality (OR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.52). Mild publication bias was found in the included studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that blood groups A and B may be risk factors for COVID-19, whereas the blood group O appears to be protective. Blood group A may be related to unfavourable outcomes. Further rigorous and high-quality research evidence is needed to confirm this association.
| S-EPMC7834371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundToxoplasmosis is one of the most common infections in humans and animals, which is caused by an obligate intracellular opportunistic parasite known as Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii). Some data have shown that both Rhesus (Rh)-positive and Rh-negative individuals differ in response to biological factors, including Toxoplasma infection. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the scientific evidence regarding the possible association between the Rh blood group and Toxoplasma infection and to determine the seroprevalence of T. gondii in the Rh blood group system.MethodsThe research was conducted on PubMed, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, and Google Scholar databases until January 2023. Twenty-one cross-sectional studies were included with a total of 10910 people. The data were synthesized using a random effect model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe overall prevalence of T. gondii was calculated at 32.34% (CI 95%: 28.23-36.45%) and 33.35% (CI 95%: 19.73-46.96%) in Rh-positive and Rh-negative blood groups. In addition, the pooled OR for the relationship between the Rh blood group and the seroprevalence of T. gondii was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.72-1.28).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed a high prevalence of Toxoplasma infection in both Rh-negative and positive blood groups. This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that no significant association was found between toxoplasmosis and Rh factor. Because of the limited number of studies in this field, more research is recommended to determine the exact relationship between toxoplasmosis and the Rh factor.
| S-EPMC10321609 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe optimal treatment of unprotected left main (UPLM) with either PCI or CABG remains uncertain.AimThe purpose of this study was to determine the comparative safety and efficacy of PCI versus CABG in patients with UPLM disease.MethodsSearch of BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, mRCT, PubMed, major cardiological congresses proceedings and references cross-check (updated November 2016). Outcomes were the rate of MACE [all cause death, MI, stroke], the rates of the individual components of MACE and the rate of target vessel revascularisation (TVR).ResultsWe identified 6 Randomised Controlled Trials totalling 4717 patients allocated to PCI or CABG. At 1 year follow up, PCI and CABG were substantially equivalent with respect to the rates of MACE [PCI 8.5% vs CABG 8.9%, OR 1.02,(0.76-1.36), p = 0.9], death [PCI 5.4% vs CABG 6.6%, OR 0.81,(0.63-1.03),p = 0.08] and MI [PCI 3.4% vs CABG 4.3%, OR 0.80(0.59-1.07), p = 0.14]. Notably, PCI was associated with a significantly lower rate of stroke [PCI 0.6% vs CABG 1.8%, OR 0.36,(0.17-0.79), p = 0.01] and with a significantly higher rate of TVR [PCI 8.7% vs CABG 4.5%, OR 2.00(1.46-2.75), p<0.01]. At a median follow up of 5years, the rates of MACE were similar between the two strategies: PCI 14.6% vs CABG 13.8%, OR 1.02(0.76-1.38), p = 0.89. Likewise, the rates of death [PCI 8% and CABG 7.7%, OR 1(0.77-1.31), P = 0.9], MI [PCI 6.1% vs CABG 5%, OR 1.41(0.85-2.34), P = 0.19, I2 59%], and stroke [PCI 2% vs CABG 2.2%, OR 0.85(0.42-1.81), p = 0.65,] were similar while PCI was associated with a significantly higher rate of TVR [14.5% vs CABG 8.9%, OR 1.73(1.41-2.13), p<0.01].ConclusionIn patients with UPLM disease, PCI and CABG are associated with similar rates of MACE and mortality at 1 year as well as after 5 years. Differences can be detected for individual end points at both short and long term FU.
| S-EPMC5489169 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several association studies of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (NOS3) gene polymorphisms with respect to coronary artery disease (CAD) have been published in the past two decades. However, their association with the disease, especially among different ethnic subgroups, still remains controversial. This prompted us to conduct a systematic review and an updated structured meta-analysis, which is the largest so far (89 articles, 132 separate studies, and a sample size of 69,235), examining association of three polymorphic forms of the NOS3 gene (i.e. Glu298Asp, T786-C and 27 bp VNTR b/a) with CAD. In a subgroup analysis, we tested their association separately among published studies originating predominantly from European, Middle Eastern, Asian, Asian-Indian and African ancestries. The pooled analysis confirmed the association of all the three selected SNP with CAD in three different genetic models transcending all ancestries worldwide. The Glu298Asp polymorphism showed strongest association (OR range = 1.28-1.52, and P<0.00001 for all comparisons), followed by T786-C (OR range = 1.34-1.42, and P<0.00001 for all comparisons) and 4b/a, (OR range = 1.19-1.41, and P ≤ 0.002 for all comparisons) in our pooled analysis. Subgroup analysis revealed that Glu298Asp (OR range = 1.54-1.87, and P<0.004 for all comparisons) and 4b/a (OR range = 1.71-3.02, and P<0.00001 for all comparisons) have highest degree of association amongst the Middle Easterners. On the other hand, T786-C and its minor allele seem to carry a highest risk for CAD among subjects of Asian ancestry (OR range = 1.61-1.90, and P ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons).
| S-EPMC4237457 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combining minimally invasive grafting of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention has become a viable option for treating coronary artery disease. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a range of clinical outcomes and hospital costs.To identify potential studies, systematic searches were carried out in various databases. The key search terms included "hybrid revascularization" AND "coronary artery bypass grafting" OR "HCR" OR "CABG." This was followed by a meta-analysis investigating the need for blood transfusion, hospital costs, ventilation time, hospital stay, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, mortality, postoperative atrial fibrillation, renal failure, operation duration, and ICU stay.The requirement for blood transfusion was significantly lower for HCR: odds ratio 0.38 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.31-0.46, P?<?.00001) as was the hospital stay: mean difference (MD) -1.48 days (95% CI, -2.61 to -0.36, P?=?0.01) and the ventilation time: MD -8.99?hours (95% CI, -15.85 to -2.13, P?=?.01). On the contrary, hospital costs were more expensive for HCR: MD $3970 (95% CI, 2570-5370, P?<?.00001). All other comparisons were insignificant.In the short-term, HCR is as safe as conventional CABG and may offer certain benefits such as a lower requirement for blood transfusion and shorter hospital stays. However, HCR is more expensive than conventional CABG.
| S-EPMC6112891 | biostudies-other
Project description:We have been experiencing a global pandemic with baleful consequences for mankind, since the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first identified in Wuhan of China, in December 2019. So far, several potential risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection have been identified. Among them, the role of ABO blood group polymorphisms has been studied with results that are still unclear. The aim of this study was to collect and meta-analyze available studies on the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and different blood groups, as well as Rhesus state. We performed a systematic search on PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases for published articles and preprints. Twenty-two studies, after the removal of duplicates, met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis with ten of them also including information on Rhesus factor. The odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the extracted data. Random-effects models were used to obtain the overall pooled ORs. Publication bias and sensitivity analysis were also performed. Our results indicate that blood groups A, B and AB have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection compared to blood group O, which appears to have a protective effect: (i) A group vs O (OR = 1.29, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.15 to 1.44), (ii) B vs O (OR = 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.25), and (iii) AB vs. O (OR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.57). An association between Rhesus state and COVID-19 infection could not be established (Rh+ vs Rh- OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.13).
| S-EPMC9333251 | biostudies-literature