Dataset Information

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an emerging approach for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) which combines the excellent long-term outcomes of surgery with the early recovery and reduced short-term complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of HCR compared to PCI in patients with MVD. Methods:A systematic database search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL/CCTR was conducted by June 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days and at latest follow-up between patients undergoing HCR versus PCI. Results:A total of 27,041 patients (HCR: 939 patients, PCI: 26,102 patients) were included from seven studies published between 2013 and 2021. At latest follow-up, HCR was associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.80, p = 0.010) and target vessel revascularization (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.64, p < 0.001), while the difference for MACCE did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20-1.05, p = 0.061). No differences were observed in terms of 30-day outcomes, nor rates of mortality or stroke at latest follow-up. Conclusions:HCR might be a valid alternative to multivessel PCI, demonstrating a lower incidence of MI and TVR. Center experience, well-coordinated heart team discussions, and good patient selection likely remain essential to ensure optimal outcomes. Future comparative studies are required to define the optimal target population.

SUBMITTER: Van den Eynde J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8645443 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe 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.MethodPubMed, 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.ResultsHCR 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).ConclusionOur 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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 1996 to May 2011.Study selectionRandomised and non-randomised studies comparing enoxaparin with unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention and reporting on both mortality (efficacy end point) and major bleeding (safety end point) outcomes.Data extractionSample size, characteristics, and outcomes, extracted independently and analysed.Data synthesis23 trials representing 30,966 patients were identified, including 10,243 patients (33.1%) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction, 8750 (28.2%) undergoing secondary percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis, and 11,973 (38.7%) with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome or stable patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 13,943 patients (45.0%) received enoxaparin and 17,023 (55.0%) unfractionated heparin. Enoxaparin was associated with significant reductions in death (relative risk 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.76; P<0.001), the composite of death or myocardial infarction (0.68, 0.57 to 0.81; P<0.001), and complications of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.6 to 0.85; P<0.001), and a reduction in incidence of major bleeding (0.80, 0.68 to 0.95; P=0.009). In patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the reduction in death (0.52, 0.42 to 0.64; P<0.001) was particularly significant and associated with a reduction in major bleeding (0.72, 0.56 to 0.93; P=0.01).ConclusionEnoxaparin seems to be superior to unfractionated heparin in reducing mortality and bleeding outcomes during percutaneous coronary intervention and particularly in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction.

Project description:BackgroundThe safety and effectiveness of dual therapy (direct oral anticoagulant [DOAC] plus P2Y12 inhibitor) versus triple therapy (vitamin K antagonist plus aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear.PurposeTo examine the effects of dual versus triple therapy on bleeding and ischemic outcomes in adults with AF after PCI.Data sourcesSearches of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (inception to 31 December 2019) and ClinicalTrials.gov (7 January 2020) without language restrictions; journal Web sites; and reference lists.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials that compared the effects of dual versus triple therapy on bleeding, mortality, and ischemic events in adults with AF after PCI.Data extractionTwo independent investigators abstracted data, assessed the quality of evidence, and rated the certainty of evidence.Data synthesisFour trials encompassing 7953 patients were selected. At the median follow-up of 1 year, high-certainty evidence showed that dual therapy was associated with reduced risk for major bleeding compared with triple therapy (risk difference [RD], -0.013 [95% CI, -0.025 to -0.002]). Low-certainty evidence showed inconclusive effects of dual versus triple therapy on risks for all-cause mortality (RD, 0.004 [CI, -0.010 to 0.017]), cardiovascular mortality (RD, 0.001 [CI, -0.011 to 0.013]), myocardial infarction (RD, 0.003 [CI, -0.010 to 0.017]), stent thrombosis (RD, 0.003 [CI, -0.005 to 0.010]), and stroke (RD, -0.003 [CI, -0.010 to 0.005]). The upper bounds of the CIs for these effects were compatible with possible increased risks with dual therapy.LimitationHeterogeneity of study designs, dosages of DOACs, and types of P2Y12 inhibitors.ConclusionIn adults with AF after PCI, dual therapy reduces risk for bleeding compared with triple therapy, whereas its effects on risks for death and ischemic end points are still unclear.Primary funding sourceNone.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Nowadays 57% of the cardiologists based in the United Kingdom and 32% of the cardiologists based in Canada utilize same day discharge (SDD) following elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a routine practice. In this analysis, we aimed to systematically assess early versus late clinical outcomes following SDD after elective PCI. METHODS:The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, the Cochrane Central, the Resources from the United States National Library of Medicine (www.ClinicalTrials.gov: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) and EMBASE were carefully searched for relevant English publications which reported early versus late clinical outcomes in patients who were discharged on the same day following revascularization by PCI. Relevant clinical outcomes which were reported in the original studies were considered as the endpoints in this analysis. Odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the data, and RevMan 5.3 was used as the statistical software. RESULTS:A total number of 21, 687 participants (enrollment time period from the year 1998 to the year 2015) were assigned to this analysis. When early versus late clinical outcomes were compared in patients who were discharged on the same day following elective PCI, major adverse cardiac events (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.31-1.79; P?=?.51), mortality (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.06-1.06; P?=?.06), stroke (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 0.72-2.94; P?=?.29), arrhythmia (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.64-2.63; P?=?.47), hematoma (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.60-1.66; P?=?1.00) and major bleeding from access site (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 0.22-12.85; P?=?.62) were not significantly different. Post-procedural myocardial infarction (OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 0.71-5.70; P?=?.19) and minor bleeding from access site (OR: 6.61, 95% CI: 0.86-50.66; P?=?.07) were also similarly manifested. However, re-hospitalization was significantly higher in those patients with late clinical outcomes (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.07-0.44; P?=?.0002). CONCLUSIONS:In those patients who were discharged from the hospital on the same day following elective PCI, no significant difference was observed in the assessed early versus late clinical outcomes. However, late clinical outcomes resulted in a significantly higher rate of re-hospitalization. Larger studies should confirm this hypothesis.

Dataset Information

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets