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