Culprit-lesion only versus complete multivessel percutaneous intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00159816%3A_____%2F16%3A00065608" target="_blank" >RIV/00159816:_____/16:00065608 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216224:14110/16:00093379

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.098" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.098</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.098" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.06.098</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Culprit-lesion only versus complete multivessel percutaneous intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Background: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with concomitant multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poor outcomes. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit-lesion only (CLO) as compared with a MV PCI approach to revascularization remains uncertain. Our objective is to gain a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of CLO as compared with MV PCI in patients with STEMI by conducting an updated meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register, the ClinicalTrials.gov Website, and Google Scholar databases of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Results: Seven RCTs were included, enrolling a total of 2006 patients. We found that there was a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.80), and repeat revascularization (RRV) (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51) favoring MV over the CLO approach for patients undergoing primary PCI. The number needed to treat in order to prevent one CV mortality, RRV, or MACE event is 47, 11, and 16 patients, respectively. No differences were observed between MV vs. CLO PCI for subsequent myocardial infarction (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40-1.39), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.15), non-cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.74-2.48), all-bleeding events (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.40-1.65), contrast-induced nephropathy (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.33-1.54), and stroke (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.47-3.46). Conclusions: MV PCI significantly reduces the rate of MACE, CV mortality, and RRV without significant harm as compared to CLO PCI.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Culprit-lesion only versus complete multivessel percutaneous intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Popis výsledku anglicky

Background: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with concomitant multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poor outcomes. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit-lesion only (CLO) as compared with a MV PCI approach to revascularization remains uncertain. Our objective is to gain a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of CLO as compared with MV PCI in patients with STEMI by conducting an updated meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register, the ClinicalTrials.gov Website, and Google Scholar databases of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Results: Seven RCTs were included, enrolling a total of 2006 patients. We found that there was a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.80), and repeat revascularization (RRV) (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30-0.51) favoring MV over the CLO approach for patients undergoing primary PCI. The number needed to treat in order to prevent one CV mortality, RRV, or MACE event is 47, 11, and 16 patients, respectively. No differences were observed between MV vs. CLO PCI for subsequent myocardial infarction (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40-1.39), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.15), non-cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.74-2.48), all-bleeding events (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.40-1.65), contrast-induced nephropathy (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.33-1.54), and stroke (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.47-3.46). Conclusions: MV PCI significantly reduces the rate of MACE, CV mortality, and RRV without significant harm as compared to CLO PCI.

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

FA - Kardiovaskulární nemoci včetně kardiochirurgie

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

Výsledek vznikl pri realizaci vícero projektů. Více informací v záložce Projekty.

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2016

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

International Journal of Cardiology

ISSN

0167-5273

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

220

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

OCT

Stát vydavatele periodika

IE - Irsko

Počet stran výsledku

9

Strana od-do

251-259

Kód UT WoS článku

000381582000046

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—