Pharmaco-Invasive Strategy Vs Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Latin America: A Meta-Analysis

IF 2.5 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS CJC Open Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-11 DOI:10.1016/j.cjco.2024.10.005
Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa MD , Cynthia Vargas-Rivas MD , Daniel Mendoza-Quispe MD, MSc , Cesar Joel Benites-Moya MD , Javier Torres-Valencia MD , German Valenzuela-Rodriguez MD , Norma Nicole Gamarra-Valverde MS , Manuel Chacon-Diaz MD , Juan Pablo Costabel MD , Mamas A. Mamas MD, PhD , Lourdes Vicent MD, PhD
{"title":"Pharmaco-Invasive Strategy Vs Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Latin America: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa MD ,&nbsp;Cynthia Vargas-Rivas MD ,&nbsp;Daniel Mendoza-Quispe MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Cesar Joel Benites-Moya MD ,&nbsp;Javier Torres-Valencia MD ,&nbsp;German Valenzuela-Rodriguez MD ,&nbsp;Norma Nicole Gamarra-Valverde MS ,&nbsp;Manuel Chacon-Diaz MD ,&nbsp;Juan Pablo Costabel MD ,&nbsp;Mamas A. Mamas MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Lourdes Vicent MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.cjco.2024.10.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the established treatment for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but often it is not readily available in low-resource settings. We assessed the safety and efficacy of the pharmaco-invasive strategy compared to primary PCI for STEMI in Latin America.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>MEDLINE, Embase, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) were searched for the period from their inception to September 2023, for studies that compared a pharmaco-invasive strategy vs primary PCI in Latin America. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, and stroke. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies—of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from random-effects meta-analyses were reported.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Six cohort studies (n = 6621) were included; no clinical trials were found. The follow-up duration ranged from the in-hospital period to 1 year. Patients who underwent a pharmaco-invasive strategy (n = 841) vs a primary PCI (n = 5780) had similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.59-1.16), major bleeding (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.69-2.02), all-cause mortality (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.47-1.05), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.44-1.44), recurrent myocardial infarction (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.18-1.61), and stroke (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.17-9.73). Most studies had a serious (33%) or critical (50%) risk of bias.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Among patients with STEMI in Latin America, only low-quality observational evidence indicated that cardiovascular outcomes and major bleeding rates were similar for those treated with a pharmaco-invasive strategy vs primary PCI. Randomized studies are needed in Latin America with the development of STEMI networks for better care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36924,"journal":{"name":"CJC Open","volume":"7 1","pages":"Pages 78-87"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11763618/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJC Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X24004487","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the established treatment for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but often it is not readily available in low-resource settings. We assessed the safety and efficacy of the pharmaco-invasive strategy compared to primary PCI for STEMI in Latin America.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) were searched for the period from their inception to September 2023, for studies that compared a pharmaco-invasive strategy vs primary PCI in Latin America. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, and stroke. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies—of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from random-effects meta-analyses were reported.

Results

Six cohort studies (n = 6621) were included; no clinical trials were found. The follow-up duration ranged from the in-hospital period to 1 year. Patients who underwent a pharmaco-invasive strategy (n = 841) vs a primary PCI (n = 5780) had similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.59-1.16), major bleeding (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.69-2.02), all-cause mortality (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.47-1.05), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.44-1.44), recurrent myocardial infarction (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.18-1.61), and stroke (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.17-9.73). Most studies had a serious (33%) or critical (50%) risk of bias.

Conclusions

Among patients with STEMI in Latin America, only low-quality observational evidence indicated that cardiovascular outcomes and major bleeding rates were similar for those treated with a pharmaco-invasive strategy vs primary PCI. Randomized studies are needed in Latin America with the development of STEMI networks for better care.

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
拉丁美洲st段抬高型心肌梗死的药物侵入策略与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗:一项荟萃分析。
背景:原发性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)是st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)的既定治疗方法,但在资源匮乏的地区往往不容易获得。在拉丁美洲,我们评估了药物侵入策略与初级PCI治疗STEMI的安全性和有效性。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase和拉丁美洲和加勒比健康科学文献(LILACS),从其成立到2023年9月,比较拉丁美洲药物侵入策略与初级PCI的研究。主要结局是主要不良心血管事件和出血。次要结局是全因死亡率、心血管死亡率、复发性心肌梗死和卒中。使用非随机干预研究(ROBINS-I)工具评估偏倚风险。报告随机效应荟萃分析的风险比(RRs)和95%置信区间(CIs)。结果:纳入6项队列研究(n = 6621);未发现临床试验。随访时间从住院期到1年。接受药物侵入策略的患者(n = 841)与初次PCI (n = 5780)的主要不良心血管事件发生率相似(RR 0.82;95% CI 0.59-1.16),大出血(RR 1.18;95% CI 0.69-2.02),全因死亡率(RR 0.70;95% CI 0.47-1.05),心血管死亡率(RR 0.80;95% CI 0.44-1.44),复发性心肌梗死(RR 0.54;95% CI 0.18-1.61),卒中(RR 1.27;95% ci 0.17-9.73)。大多数研究有严重(33%)或严重(50%)的偏倚风险。结论:在拉丁美洲的STEMI患者中,只有低质量的观察性证据表明,采用药物侵入策略治疗的患者与初次PCI治疗的心血管结局和大出血率相似。随着STEMI网络的发展,拉丁美洲需要进行随机研究,以获得更好的护理。
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
CJC Open
CJC Open Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
143
审稿时长
60 days
期刊最新文献
Author Corrections to “Smoking, Colchicine, and Postoperative Outcomes in Thoracic Surgery: Post Hoc Analysis of the COP-AF Randomized Controlled Trial Machine Learning–Based Model for Predicting Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Hospitalized with Heart Failure: Development and Validation Study Understanding the Nature and Impact of Chest Pain in Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome Mortality Benefit of Microaxial Flow Pump Use in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: a Bayesian Reanalysis of the DanGer Shock Trial Exercise Volume and Coronary Artery Calcification: A Systematic Review
×
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:604180095
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