Dataset Information

Coronary artery bypass surgery plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone for ischaemic heart disease: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite increasing survival, cardiovascular disease remains the primary cause of death worldwide with an estimated 7.4 million annual deaths. The main symptom of ischaemic heart disease is chest pain (angina pectoris) most often caused by blockage of a coronary artery. The aim of coronary artery bypass surgery is revascularisation achieved by surgically grafting harvested arteries or veins distal to the coronary lesion restoring blood flow to the heart muscle. Older evidence suggested a clear survival benefit of coronary artery bypass graft surgery, but more recent trials yield less clear evidence. We want to assess the benefits and harms of coronary artery bypass surgery combined with different medical therapies versus medical therapy alone in patients with ischaemic heart disease.

Methods

This protocol for a systematic review follows the recommendations of Cochrane and the eight-step assessment procedure suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues. We plan to include all randomised clinical trials assessing coronary artery bypass surgery combined with different medical therapies versus medical therapy alone in patients with ischaemic heart disease. We plan to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science, and BIOSIS to identify relevant trials. Any eligible trial will be assessed as high risk or low risk of bias, and our conclusions will primarily be based on trials at low risk of bias. The analyses of the extracted data will be performed using Review Manager 5, STATA 16 and trial sequential analysis. For both our primary and secondary outcomes, we will create a 'Summary of Findings' table and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Discussion

Coronary artery bypass surgery is invasive and can cause death, which is why its use must be thoroughly studied to determine if it yields a large enough long-term benefit for the thousands of patients receiving it every year.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO ID 131924.

SUBMITTER: Lorenzen US

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6819611 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Coronary artery bypass surgery plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone for ischaemic heart disease: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Lorenzen Ulver Spangsberg US Buggeskov Katrine Bredahl KB Nielsen Emil Eik EE Sethi Naqash Javaid NJ Carranza Christian Lildal CL Gluud Christian C Jakobsen Janus Christian JC

Systematic reviews 20191028 1

<h4>Background</h4>Despite increasing survival, cardiovascular disease remains the primary cause of death worldwide with an estimated 7.4 million annual deaths. The main symptom of ischaemic heart disease is chest pain (angina pectoris) most often caused by blockage of a coronary artery. The aim of coronary artery bypass surgery is revascularisation achieved by surgically grafting harvested arteries or veins distal to the coronary lesion restoring blood flow to the heart muscle. Older evidence s ...[more]

PMID: 31661026

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network reported that left ventricular reverse remodeling at 2 years did not differ between patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation randomized to coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair (n = 150) or coronary artery bypass grafting alone (n = 151). To address health resource use implications, we compared costs and quality-adjusted survival.MethodsWe used individual patient data from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial on survival, hospitalizations, quality of life, and US hospitalization costs to estimate cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years. A microsimulation model was developed to extrapolate to 10 years. Bootstrap and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty.ResultsIn-hospital costs were $59,745 for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair versus $51,326 for coronary artery bypass grafting alone (difference $8419; 95% uncertainty interval, 2259-18,757). Two-year costs were $81,263 versus $67,341 (difference 13,922 [2370 to 28,888]), and quality-adjusted life years were 1.35 versus 1.30 (difference 0.05; -0.04 to 0.14), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $308,343/quality-adjusted life year for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair. At 10 years, its costs remained higher ($107,733 vs $88,583, difference 19,150 [-3866 to 56,826]) and quality-adjusted life years showed no difference (-0.92 to 0.87), with 5.08 versus 5.08. The likelihood that coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair would be considered cost-effective at 10 years based on a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100K/quality-adjusted life year did not exceed 37%. Only when this procedure reduces the death rate by a relative 5% will the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio fall below $100K/quality-adjusted life year.ConclusionsThe addition of mitral valve repair to coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation is unlikely to be cost-effective. Only if late mortality benefits can be demonstrated will it meet commonly used cost-effectiveness criteria.

Project description:AimsThe value of elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy over medical therapy alone in managing stable patients with coronary artery disease is debated. We reviewed all trials comparing the two strategies in this population.Methods and resultsFrom inception through November 2020, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and other databases were searched for randomised trials comparing revascularisation against medical therapy alone in clinically stable coronary artery disease patients. Treatment effects were measured by rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals, using random-effects models. Cardiac mortality was the pre-specified primary endpoint. Spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) and its association with cardiac mortality were secondary endpoints. Further endpoints included all-cause mortality, any MI, and stroke. Longest follow-up data were abstracted. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021225598). Twenty-five trials involving 19 806 patients (10 023 randomised to revascularisation plus medical therapy and 9783 to medical therapy alone) were included. Compared with medical therapy alone, revascularisation yielded a lower risk of cardiac death [RR 0.79 (0.67-0.93), P < 0.01] and spontaneous MI [RR 0.74 (0.64-0.86), P < 0.01]. By meta-regression, the cardiac death risk reduction after revascularisation, compared with medical therapy alone, was linearly associated with follow-up duration [RR per 4-year follow-up: 0.81 (0.69-0.96), P = 0.008], spontaneous MI absolute difference (P = 0.01) and percentage of multivessel disease at baseline (P = 0.004). Trial sequential and sensitivity analyses confirmed the reliability of the cardiac mortality findings. All-cause mortality [0.94 (0.87-1.01), P = 0.11], any MI (P = 0.14), and stroke risk (P = 0.30) did not differ significantly between strategies.ConclusionIn stable coronary artery disease patients, randomisation to elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy led to reduced cardiac mortality compared with medical therapy alone. The cardiac survival benefit after revascularisation improved with longer follow-up times and was associated with fewer spontaneous MIs.

Project description:Importance:The effect of ticagrelor with or without aspirin on saphenous vein graft patency in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unknown. Objective:To compare the effect of ticagrelor + aspirin or ticagrelor alone vs aspirin alone on saphenous vein graft patency 1 year after CABG. Design, Setting, and Participants:Randomized, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial among 6 tertiary hospitals in China. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 80 years with indications for elective CABG. Patients requiring urgent revascularization, concomitant cardiac surgery, dual antiplatelet or vitamin K antagonist therapy post-CABG, and who were at risk of serious bleeding were excluded. From July 2014 until November 2015, 1256 patients were identified and 500 were enrolled. Follow-up was completed in January 2017. Interventions:Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to start ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) + aspirin (100 mg once daily) (n = 168), ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) (n = 166), or aspirin (100 mg once daily) (n = 166) within 24 hours post-CABG. Neither patients nor treating physicians were blinded to allocation. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcome was saphenous vein graft patency 1 year after CABG (FitzGibbon grade A) adjudicated independently by a committee blinded to allocation. Saphenous vein graft patency was assessed by multislice computed tomographic angiography or coronary angiography. Results:Among 500 randomized patients (mean age, 63.6 years; women, 91 [18.2%]), 461 (92.2%) completed the trial. Saphenous vein graft patency rates 1 year post-CABG were 88.7% (432 of 487 vein grafts) with ticagrelor + aspirin; 82.8% (404 of 488 vein grafts) with ticagrelor alone; and 76.5% (371 of 485 vein grafts) with aspirin alone. The difference between ticagrelor + aspirin vs aspirin alone was statistically significant (12.2% [95% CI, 5.2% to 19.2%]; P < .001), whereas the difference between ticagrelor alone vs aspirin alone was not statistically significant (6.3% [95% CI, -1.1% to 13.7%]; P = .10). Five major bleeding episodes occurred during 1 year of follow-up (3 with ticagrelor + aspirin; 2 with ticagrelor alone). Conclusions and Relevance:Among patients undergoing elective CABG with saphenous vein grafting, ticagrelor + aspirin significantly increased graft patency after 1 year vs aspirin alone; there was no significant difference between ticagrelor alone and aspirin alone. Further research with more patients is needed to assess comparative bleeding risks. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02201771.

Project description:The concept of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending (LAD) graft and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD vessels. Multiple comparative studies have evaluated the safety and feasibility of HCR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery disease (MCAD). However, the sample size of each study was small, and evidences based on single-institutional experience. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term outcomes of HCR with those of CABG for MCAD.PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, as well as conference proceedings, were searched for eligible studies published up to March 2014. We calculated summary odds ratios (OR) for primary endpoints (death, stroke; myocardial infarction (MI); target vessel revascularization (TVR); major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs)) and secondary endpoints (atrial fibrillation (AF); renal failure; length of stay in the intensive care unit (LoS in ICU); length of stay in hospital (LoS in hospital); red blood cell (RBC) transfusion). Data from 6176 participants were derived from ten cohort studies.HCR was non-inferior to CABG in terms of MACCEs during hospitalization (odds ratio (OR), 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-1.33)and at one-year follow-up(0.32, 0.05-1.89) , and no significant difference was found between HCR and CABG groups in in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcomes of death, MI, stroke, the prevalence of AF and renal failure, whereas HCR was associated with a lower requirement of RBC transfusion and shorter LoS in ICU and LoS in hospital than CABG (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.25, 95% CI, -1.62 to -0.88; -17.47, -31.01 to -3.93; -1.77, -3.07 to -0.46; respectively).Our meta-analysis indicates that HCR is feasible, safe and effective for the treatment of MCAD, with similar in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcome, significantly lower requirement of RBC transfusion, and faster recovery compared with CABG.

Dataset Information

Coronary artery bypass surgery plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone for ischaemic heart disease: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Coronary artery bypass surgery plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone for ischaemic heart disease: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets