Dataset Information

Cardiac mortality in patients randomised to elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The 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 results

From 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.

Conclusion

In 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.

SUBMITTER: Navarese EP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8669551 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing coronary revascularization often require inotropic support that has been associated with an increased risk for death and morbidity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of levosimendan versus control on survival after coronary revascularization. METHODS: A systemic review and meta-analysis of the literature was carried out on published randomized controlled clinical trials that investigated the efficacy of levosimendan compared to other therapy in patients having coronary revascularisaion. The databases searched were Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials. Studies that compared levosimendan to any other therapy for coronary revascularisation in adult humans and reported at least one outcome of interest were considered for inclusion. Both percutaneous coronary intervention and cardiac surgery were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers using predefined criteria. Relevant outcomes included mortality, cardiac index, cardiac enzymes, length of stay and post-procedural atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 729 patients from 17 studies. Levosimendan was associated with a mortality reduction after coronary revascularization, (19/386 in the levosimendan group vs 39/343 in the control arm) odds ratio (OR) 0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.76, P for overall effect 0.005, P for heterogeneity = 0.33, I2 = 12% with a total of 729 patients. Levosimendan also had a favourable effect on cardiac index (standardised mean difference 1.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.83, P for overall effect < 0.00001), length of intensive care stay (random effects model, mean difference - 26.18 hours 95% CI 46.20 to 6.16, P for heterogeneity < 0.00001, I2 = 95%, P for overall effect P = 0.01), reductions in the rate of atrial fibrillation (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.82, P for effect = 0.004, P for heterogeneity 0.84, I2 = 0% for 465 patients) and troponin I levels group (mean difference -1.59, 95% CI 1.78 to 1.40, P for overall effect < 0.00001, P for heterogeneity < 0.00001, I2 = 95%). Limitations of this analysis are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan is associated with a significant improvement in mortality after coronary revascularization. There are also improvements in several secondary endpoints. A suitably powered randomised controlled trial is required to confirm these findings and to address the unresolved questions about the timing and dosing of levosimendan.

Project description:BackgroundDespite 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.MethodsThis 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.DiscussionCoronary 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 registrationPROSPERO ID 131924.

Project description:BACKGROUND: There is a lack of high quality evidence concerning the efficacy of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). According to international evidence-based guidelines, treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) should include patient education, exercise and weight loss. Insoles and pharmacological treatment can be included as supplementary treatments. If the combination of these non-surgical treatment modalities is ineffective, TKA may be indicated. The purpose of this randomised controlled trial is to examine whether TKA provides further improvement in pain, function and quality of life in addition to optimised non-surgical treatment in patients with KOA defined as definite radiographic OA and up to moderate pain. METHODS/DESIGN: The study will be conducted in The North Denmark Region. 100 participants with radiographic KOA (K-L grade ?2) and mean pain during the previous week of ? 60 mm (0-100, best to worst scale) who are considered eligible for TKA by an orthopaedic surgeon will be included. The treatment will consist of 12 weeks of optimised non-surgical treatment consisting of patient education, exercise, diet, insoles, analgesics and/or NSAIDs. Patients will be randomised to either receiving or not receiving a TKA in addition to the optimised non-surgical treatment. The primary outcome will be the change from baseline to 12 months on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)(4) defined as the average score for the subscale scores for pain, symptoms, activities of daily living, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes include the five individual KOOS subscale scores, EQ-5D, pain on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale, self-efficacy, pain pressure thresholds, and isometric knee flexion and knee extension strength. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomised controlled trial to investigate the efficacy of TKA as an adjunct treatment to optimised non-surgical treatment in patients with KOA. The results will significantly contribute to evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with KOA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov reference: NCT01410409.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the risks and benefits of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and whether these associations are modified by patients' characteristics.DesignIndividual patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesSearches were conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and three websites (www.tctmd.com, www.escardio.org, www.acc.org/cardiosourceplus) from inception to 16 July 2020. The primary authors provided individual participant data.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials comparing effects of oral P2Y12 monotherapy and DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints after coronary revascularisation in patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, tested for non-inferiority against a margin of 1.15 for the hazard ratio. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or type 5 bleeding.ResultsThe meta-analysis included data from six trials, including 24 096 patients. The primary outcome occurred in 283 (2.95%) patients with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 315 (3.27%) with DAPT in the per protocol population (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.09; P=0.005 for non-inferiority; P=0.38 for superiority; τ2=0.00) and in 303 (2.94%) with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 338 (3.36%) with DAPT in the intention to treat population (0.90, 0.77 to 1.05; P=0.18 for superiority; τ2=0.00). The treatment effect was consistent across all subgroups, except for sex (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting that P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy lowers the risk of the primary ischaemic endpoint in women (hazard ratio 0.64, 0.46 to 0.89) but not in men (1.00, 0.83 to 1.19). The risk of bleeding was lower with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy than with DAPT (97 (0.89%) v 197 (1.83%); hazard ratio 0.49, 0.39 to 0.63; P<0.001; τ2=0.03), which was consistent across subgroups, except for type of P2Y12 inhibitor (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting greater benefit when a newer P2Y12 inhibitor rather than clopidogrel was part of the DAPT regimen.ConclusionsP2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a similar risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with evidence that this association may be modified by sex, and a lower bleeding risk compared with DAPT.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42020176853.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease.DesignBayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesA strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease.Data sourcesMedline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation.Main outcome measureAll cause mortality.Results100 trials in 93,553 patients with 262,090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment.ConclusionAmong patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.

Project description:BackgroundLong-term hormone therapy alone is standard care for metastatic or high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer. STAMPEDE--an international, open-label, randomised controlled trial--uses a novel multiarm, multistage design to assess whether the early additional use of one or two drugs (docetaxel, zoledronic acid, celecoxib, zoledronic acid and docetaxel, or zoledronic acid and celecoxib) improves survival in men starting first-line, long-term hormone therapy. Here, we report the preplanned, second intermediate analysis comparing hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D) with hormone therapy alone (control arm A).MethodsEligible patients were men with newly diagnosed or rapidly relapsing prostate cancer who were starting long-term hormone therapy for the first time. Hormone therapy was given as standard care in all trial arms, with local radiotherapy encouraged for newly diagnosed patients without distant metastasis. Randomisation was done using minimisation with a random element across seven stratification factors. Patients randomly allocated to arm D received celecoxib 400 mg twice daily, given orally, until 1 year or disease progression (including prostate-specific antigen [PSA] failure). The intermediate outcome was failure-free survival (FFS) in three activity stages; the primary outcome was overall survival in a subsequent efficacy stage. Research arms were compared pairwise against the control arm on an intention-to-treat basis. Accrual of further patients was discontinued in any research arm showing safety concerns or insufficient evidence of activity (lack of benefit) compared with the control arm. The minimum targeted activity at the second intermediate activity stage was a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·92. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476, and with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN78818544.Findings2043 patients were enrolled in the trial from Oct 17, 2005, to Jan 31, 2011, of whom 584 were randomly allocated to receive hormone therapy alone (control group; arm A) and 291 to receive hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D). At the preplanned analysis of the second intermediate activity stage, with 305 FFS events (209 in arm A, 96 in arm D), there was no evidence of an advantage for hormone therapy plus celecoxib over hormone therapy alone: HR 0·94 (95% CI 0·74-1·20). [corrected]. 2-year FFS was 51% (95% CI 46-56) in arm A and 51% (95% CI 43-58) in arm D. There was no evidence of differences in the incidence of adverse events between groups (events of grade 3 or higher were noted at any time in 123 [23%, 95% CI 20-27] patients in arm A and 64 [25%, 19-30] in arm D). The most common grade 3-5 events adverse effects in both groups were endocrine disorders (55 [11%] of patients in arm A vs 19 [7%] in arm D) and musculoskeletal disorders (30 [6%] of patients in arm A vs 15 [6%] in arm D). The independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping accrual to both celecoxib-containing arms on grounds of lack of benefit and discontinuing celecoxib for patients currently on treatment, which was endorsed by the trial steering committee.InterpretationCelecoxib 400 mg twice daily for up to 1 year is insufficiently active in patients starting hormone therapy for high-risk prostate cancer, and we do not recommend its use in this setting. Accrual continues seamlessly to the other research arms and follow-up of all arms will continue to assess effects on overall survival.FundingCancer Research UK, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Medical Research Council (London, UK).