Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Chronic Total Occlusion of Coronary Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of interventional cardiology Pub Date : 2023-11-06 DOI:10.1155/2023/9928347
Chenyang Wang, Sheng Liu, Raimov Kamronbek, Siyao Ni, Yunjiu Cheng, Huiyuan Yan, Ming Zhang
{"title":"Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Chronic Total Occlusion of Coronary Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Chenyang Wang,&nbsp;Sheng Liu,&nbsp;Raimov Kamronbek,&nbsp;Siyao Ni,&nbsp;Yunjiu Cheng,&nbsp;Huiyuan Yan,&nbsp;Ming Zhang","doi":"10.1155/2023/9928347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Introduction</i>. Chronic total occlusion (CTO) of coronary arteries constitutes a substantial clinical challenge and has historically been managed through medical management and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, with the advancement in interventional technology, the success rate of percutaneous treatment has been significantly improved, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a primary mode of treatment for CTOs, demonstrating remarkable clinical efficacy. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate and contrast the outcomes of PCI and CABG in patients with CTO. <i>Methods and Results</i>. A systematic search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The primary endpoints evaluated in this meta-analysis were the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, and the need for repeat revascularization. Nine studies, encompassing a total of 8,674 patients, were found to meet the criteria for inclusion and had a mean follow-up duration of 4.3 years. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that compared to CABG, PCI was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66–0.92; <i>P</i> = 0.003) and cardiac death (RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31–0.96; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05), but an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 1.96; 95%CI: 1.07–3.62; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05) and repeat revascularization (RR: 7.13; 95% CI: 5.69–8.94; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.00001). There was no statistically significant difference in MACE (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.69–1.81; <i>P</i> = 0.66) between the PCI and CABG groups. <i>Conclusion</i>. In the present meta-analysis comparing PCI and CABG in patients with chronic total occlusion of the coronary arteries, the results indicated that PCI was superior to CABG in reducing all-cause mortality and cardiac death but inferior in decreasing myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. There was no statistically significant difference in MACE between the two groups.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16329,"journal":{"name":"Journal of interventional cardiology","volume":"2023 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10643034/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of interventional cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2023/9928347","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. Chronic total occlusion (CTO) of coronary arteries constitutes a substantial clinical challenge and has historically been managed through medical management and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, with the advancement in interventional technology, the success rate of percutaneous treatment has been significantly improved, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a primary mode of treatment for CTOs, demonstrating remarkable clinical efficacy. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate and contrast the outcomes of PCI and CABG in patients with CTO. Methods and Results. A systematic search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The primary endpoints evaluated in this meta-analysis were the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, and the need for repeat revascularization. Nine studies, encompassing a total of 8,674 patients, were found to meet the criteria for inclusion and had a mean follow-up duration of 4.3 years. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that compared to CABG, PCI was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66–0.92; P = 0.003) and cardiac death (RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31–0.96; P < 0.05), but an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 1.96; 95%CI: 1.07–3.62; P < 0.05) and repeat revascularization (RR: 7.13; 95% CI: 5.69–8.94; P < 0.00001). There was no statistically significant difference in MACE (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.69–1.81; P = 0.66) between the PCI and CABG groups. Conclusion. In the present meta-analysis comparing PCI and CABG in patients with chronic total occlusion of the coronary arteries, the results indicated that PCI was superior to CABG in reducing all-cause mortality and cardiac death but inferior in decreasing myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. There was no statistically significant difference in MACE between the two groups.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗慢性冠状动脉全闭塞:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
慢性冠状动脉全闭塞(CTO)是一个重大的临床挑战,历史上一直通过医疗管理和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)来治疗。然而,随着介入技术的进步,经皮介入治疗的成功率显著提高,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)已成为治疗CTOs的主要方式,临床疗效显著。本系统综述和荟萃分析的目的是评估和对比CTO患者PCI和CABG的结果。方法与结果:系统检索PubMed、Embase和Web of Science数据库。本荟萃分析评估的主要终点是主要不良心脏事件(MACE)的发生和全因死亡率。次要终点包括心肌梗死(MI)、心源性死亡和需要重复血运重建术。9项研究共纳入8674例患者,符合纳入标准,平均随访时间为4.3年。荟萃分析结果显示,与CABG相比,PCI的全因死亡率较低(RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66-0.92;P = 0.003)和心源性死亡(RR: 0.55;95% ci: 0.31-0.96;P P P P = 0.66)。结论:本荟萃分析比较了慢性冠状动脉全闭塞患者的PCI和CABG,结果表明PCI在降低全因死亡率和心源性死亡方面优于CABG,但在降低心肌梗死和重复血运重建术方面不如CABG。两组间MACE差异无统计学意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of interventional cardiology
Journal of interventional cardiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
81
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Interventional Cardiology is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for cardiologists determined to stay current in the diagnosis, investigation, and management of patients with cardiovascular disease and its associated complications. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies focusing on new procedures and techniques in all major subject areas in the field, including: Acute coronary syndrome Coronary disease Congenital heart diseases Myocardial infarction Peripheral arterial disease Valvular heart disease Cardiac hemodynamics and physiology Haemostasis and thrombosis
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to “The “L-Sandwich” Strategy for True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Randomized Clinical Trial” Complete Revascularization Techniques for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Angiography- and Coronary Physiology-Guided PCI Predictors for Sedation Failure in Mitral Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair Procedures Single Center Experience With Impella 5.5 for Escalation and De-Escalation of Cardiogenic Shock Patients Epidemiological Trends, Etiology, and Burden Study of Heart Failure in China, 1990–2019
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1