Clinical prognosis of optimal medical therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary heart disease.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hao JY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8382476 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10945893 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeData comparing the clinical benefits of medical treatment with those of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in an elderly population with angina pectoris are limited. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of elective PCI versus optimal medical treatment (OMT) in elderly patients (between 75 and 84 years old) with angina pectoris.Materials and methodsOne hundred seventy-seven patients with significant coronary artery stenosis were randomly assigned to either the PCI group (n=90) or the OMT group (n=87). The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse events in the 1-year follow-up period that included cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and stroke.ResultsMajor adverse events occurred in 5 patients (5.6%) of the PCI group and in 17 patents (19.5%) of the OMT group (p=0.015). There were no significant differences between the PCI group and the OMT group in cardiac death [hazard ratio (HR) for the PCI group 0.454; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.041-5.019, p=0.520], myocardial infarction (HR 0.399; 95% CI 0.039-4.050, p=0.437), or stroke (HR 0.919; 95% CI 0.057-14.709, p=0.952). However, the PCI group showed a significant preventive effect of the composite of major adverse events (HR 0.288; 95% CI 0.106-0.785, p=0.015) and against the need for coronary revascularization (HR 0.157; 95% CI 0.035-0.703, p=0.016).ConclusionElective PCI reduced major adverse events and was found to be an effective treatment modality in elderly patients with angina pectoris and significant coronary artery stenosis, compared to OMT.
| S-EPMC4740530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) use is low in the setting of stable symptomatic angina in individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) despite high cardiovascular risk in this population, and PCI is frequently deferred out of concern for precipitating dialysis therapy. Whether this is appropriate is uncertain, and patient-centered data comparing the relative risks and benefits of continued medical therapy versus PCI in patients with advanced CKD and stable angina are scarce.Study designDecision analysis.Setting & populationHypothetical cohort of individuals with advanced CKD (stages 4-5 with estimated glomerular filtration rates ≤ 20mL/min/1.73m2) and stable angina.Model, perspective, & timelineA Markov model with a Monte Carlo simulation through 12 cycles, that is, 3 years of 3-month intervals, with 10,000 microsimulations predicted mean quality-adjusted life-years.InterventionPCI first, medical management, or dialysis (hemodialysis [HD]) followed by PCI.OutcomesOutcomes modeled were progression to HD therapy (for those not assigned to the preemptive HD strategy), catheter infection, and death.ResultsOur analysis showed mean quality-adjusted life-years of 1.103 ± 0.69 for PCI first, 1.088±0.70 for medical management, and 0.670±0.58 for HD followed by PCI. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found PCI as the preferred strategy > 60% of the time.LimitationsValues for probabilities and utilities were estimated and/or derived from multiple sources that were not uniform in their populations in terms of age, comorbid condition burden, and degree of kidney failure, and several simplifying assumptions were made.ConclusionsOur analysis demonstrates that quality-adjusted life expectancy is similar for the PCI first and medical management strategies in patients with advanced CKD with stable angina and that the decision depends on patient preferences other than those incorporated in our model. Both strategies are superior to preemptive dialysis.
| S-EPMC5329119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background The secondary prevention with pharmacologic therapy is essential for preventing recurrent cardiovascular events in patients experiencing acute myocardial infarction. Guideline-based optimal medical therapy (OMT) for patients with acute myocardial infarction consists of antiplatelet therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, β-blockers, and statins. We aimed to determine the prescription rate of OMT use at discharge and to evaluate the impact of OMT on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stent era using nationwide cohort data. Methods and Results Using the National Health Insurance claims data in South Korea, patients with acute myocardial infarction who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent between July 2013 and June 2017 were enrolled. A total of 35 972 patients were classified into the OMT and non-OMT groups according to the post-percutaneous coronary intervention discharge medication. The primary end point was all-cause death, and the 2 groups were compared using a propensity-score matching analysis. Fifty-seven percent of patients were prescribed OMT at discharge. During the follow-up period (median, 2.0 years [interquartile range, 1.1-3.2 years]), OMT was associated with a significant reduction in the all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.76-0.90]; P<0.001) and composite outcome of death or coronary revascularization (aHR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85-0.93]; P<0.001). Conclusions OMT was prescribed at suboptimal rates in South Korea. However, our nationwide cohort study showed that OMT has a benefit for long-term clinical outcomes on all-cause mortality and composite outcome of death or coronary revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention in the drug-eluting stent era.
| S-EPMC10227320 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStroke is a rare but serious adverse event associated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the relative risk of stroke between stable patients undergoing a direct PCI strategy and those undergoing an initial optimal medical therapy (OMT) strategy has not been established yet. This study sought to investigate if, in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD), an initial strategy PCI is associated with a higher risk of stroke than a strategy based on OMT alone.MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis of 6 contemporary randomized control trials in which 5673 patients with SCAD were randomized to initial PCI or OMT. Only trials with stent utilization more than 50% were included. Study endpoint was the rate of stroke during follow up.ResultsMean age of patients ranged from 60 to 65 years and stent utilization ranged from 72% to 100%. Rate of stroke was 2.0% at a weighted mean follow up of 55.3 months. On pooled analysis, the risk of stroke was similar between patients undergoing a PCI plus OMT and those receiving only OMT (2.2% vs. 1.8%, OR on fixed effect = 1.24 95%CI: 0.85-1.79). There was no heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.15). On sensitivity analysis after removing each individual study the pooled effect estimate remains unchanged.ConclusionsIn patients with SCAD an initial strategy based on a direct PCI is not associated with an increased risk of stroke during long-term follow up compared to an initial strategy based on OMT alone.
| S-EPMC4938490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany studies have reported potential benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal drug therapy (ODT) for patients with stable coronary heart disease but with inconsistent results. To examine this, an explicit systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compared the clinical outcomes of PCI and ODT in these patients.MethodsThe following terms were combined to search relative articles through databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Web of Science published from January 2010 to November 2021 according to Participants, Intervention, Control, Outcomes, Study (PICOS) criteria: "coronary heart disease", "stable coronary heart disease", "stable angina pectoris", "percutaneous coronary intervention", "PCI", "percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty", "drug therapy", "optimized drug treatment", and "optimized drug therapy". The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.2, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies.ResultsA total of 12 articles were included in the final analysis. There were 4,288 cases of PCI patients and 4,261 cases of ODT patients. The results showed that, when comparing PCI with ODT, there was a significant difference in the probability of myocardial infarction [relative risk (RR) =0.63; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.45-0.90] and the patient mortality (RR =0.51; 95% CI: 0.40-0.64). However, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of stroke (RR =1.33; 95% CI: 0.82-2.17), revascularization (RR =0.86; 95% CI: 0.46-1.62) and patient quality of life (MD =10.44; 95% CI: -1.84 to 22.73). Performance bias and detection bias were all unclear in the included studies and should be warned.DiscussionCompared with ODT, PCI reduced the mortality and myocardial infarction rate of patients with CTO or severe coronary artery stenosis. However, the incidence of stroke, revascularization, and quality of life of patients were not significant different between PCI and ODT. Performance bias and detection bias should be cautioned.
| S-EPMC9096285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesThe outcome benefits of β-blockers in chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) have not been fully assessed. We evaluated the prognostic impact of β-blockers on patients with chronic CAD after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).MethodsA total of 3,075 patients with chronic CAD were included from the Grand Drug-Eluting Stent registry. We analyzed β-blocker prescriptions, including doses and types, in each patient at 3-month intervals from discharge. After propensity score matching, 1,170 pairs of patients (β-blockers vs. no β-blockers) were derived. Primary outcome was defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI). We further analyzed the outcome benefits of different doses (low-, medium-, and high-dose) and types (conventional or vasodilating) of β-blockers.ResultsDuring a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3.1 (3.0-3.1) years, 134 (5.7%) patients experienced primary outcome. Overall, β-blockers demonstrated no significant benefit in primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.24), all-cause death (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60-1.25), and MI (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.49-3.15). In subgroup analysis, β-blockers were associated with a lower risk of all-cause death in patients with previous MI and/or revascularization (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.14-0.99) (p for interaction=0.045). No significant associations were found for the clinical outcomes with different doses and types of β-blockers.ConclusionsOverall, β-blocker therapy was not associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with chronic CAD undergoing PCI. Limited mortality benefit of β-blockers may exist for patients with previous MI and/or revascularization.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03507205.
| S-EPMC9257156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The foundation of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is guideline-directed medical treatment. However, surgical revascularisation offers improved survival and quality of life for patients with more extensive coronary disease and the greatest degree of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and remodelling. The most commonly considered surgical interventions for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction are coronary artery bypass surgery, sometimes combined with surgical ventricular reconstruction and surgery for mitral regurgitation. In this review, the author considers the risks and benefits of coronary artery bypass graft versus percutaneous coronary intervention in the management of heart failure patients with multivessel disease.
| S-EPMC5491011 | biostudies-other
Project description:AimsStudies comparing the outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) along with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in treatment of chronic total occlusion (CTO) are limited by observational design, variable follow-up period, diverse clinical outcomes, high drop-out and cross-over rates. This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis of published data of observational as well as randomized studies comparing long term outcomes of PCI+OMT versus OMT alone.Methods and resultsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed. 15 studies meeting criteria were included in the meta-analysis. The New-castle Ottawa scale was used to appraise the overall quality of the studies. Random-effects model with inverse variance method was undertaken. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) which comprises of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and un-planned revascularization were significantly lower in the PCI+OMT group (RR:0.76; 95% CI:0.61 to 0.95; P=<0.00001; I2 = 85%). All-cause mortality and cardiac death were significantly lower in the PCI+OMT group (P=<0.00001 in both). Myocardial infarction and stroke rates were lower in the PCI+OMT group, however they did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.24, P = 0.15 respectively). Unplanned revascularizations (of any vessel) were also similar in both the groups (P = 0.78, I2 = 88%).ConclusionPCI of CTO is rewarded with better long term outcome, in terms of MACE, all-cause mortality and cardiac death with similar rates of un-planned revascularization.
| S-EPMC7474112 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1768265 | biostudies-literature