Baseline platelet count in percutaneous coronary intervention: a dose-response meta-analysis.

Akhmetzhan Galimzhanov, Yersyn Sabitov, Erhan Tenekecioglu, Han Naung Tun, Mirvat Alasnag, Mamas A Mamas
{"title":"Baseline platelet count in percutaneous coronary intervention: a dose-response meta-analysis.","authors":"Akhmetzhan Galimzhanov, Yersyn Sabitov, Erhan Tenekecioglu, Han Naung Tun, Mirvat Alasnag, Mamas A Mamas","doi":"10.1136/heartjnl-2022-320910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The nature of the relationship between baseline platelet count and clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear. We undertook dose-response and pairwise meta-analyses to better describe the prognostic value of the initial platelet count and clinical endpoints in patients after PCI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science (up to 9 October 2021) was performed to identify studies that evaluated the association between platelet count and clinical outcomes following PCI. The primary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding. We performed random-effects pairwise and one-stage dose-response meta-analyses by calculating HRs and 95% CIs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The meta-analysis included 19 studies with 217 459 patients. We report a J-shaped relationship between baseline thrombocyte counts and all-cause death, MACE and major bleeding at follow-up. The risk of haemorrhagic events exceeded the risk of thrombotic events at low platelet counts (<175×10<sup>9</sup>/L), while a predominant ischaemic risk was observed at high platelet counts (>250×10<sup>9</sup>/L). Pairwise meta-analyses revealed a robust link between initial platelet counts and the risk of postdischarge all-cause mortality, major bleeding (for thrombocytopenia: HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.49; HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.00, respectively) and future death from any cause and MACE (thrombocytosis: HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.98; HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.78, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Low platelet counts were associated with the predominant bleeding risk, while high platelet counts were only associated with the ischaemic events.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42021283270.</p>","PeriodicalId":9311,"journal":{"name":"British Heart Journal","volume":"108 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2022-320910","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The nature of the relationship between baseline platelet count and clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear. We undertook dose-response and pairwise meta-analyses to better describe the prognostic value of the initial platelet count and clinical endpoints in patients after PCI.

Methods: A search of PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science (up to 9 October 2021) was performed to identify studies that evaluated the association between platelet count and clinical outcomes following PCI. The primary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding. We performed random-effects pairwise and one-stage dose-response meta-analyses by calculating HRs and 95% CIs.

Results: The meta-analysis included 19 studies with 217 459 patients. We report a J-shaped relationship between baseline thrombocyte counts and all-cause death, MACE and major bleeding at follow-up. The risk of haemorrhagic events exceeded the risk of thrombotic events at low platelet counts (<175×109/L), while a predominant ischaemic risk was observed at high platelet counts (>250×109/L). Pairwise meta-analyses revealed a robust link between initial platelet counts and the risk of postdischarge all-cause mortality, major bleeding (for thrombocytopenia: HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.49; HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.00, respectively) and future death from any cause and MACE (thrombocytosis: HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.98; HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.78, respectively).

Conclusion: Low platelet counts were associated with the predominant bleeding risk, while high platelet counts were only associated with the ischaemic events.

Prospero registration number: CRD42021283270.

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中的基线血小板计数:一项剂量-反应荟萃分析
目的:目前尚不清楚经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后基线血小板计数与临床预后之间的关系。我们进行了剂量-反应和两两荟萃分析,以更好地描述PCI术后患者初始血小板计数和临床终点的预后价值。方法检索PubMed, Scopus和Web of Science(截至2021年10月9日),以确定评估血小板计数与PCI术后临床结果之间关系的研究。主要结局为全因死亡率、主要不良心血管事件(MACE)和大出血。我们通过计算hr和95% ci进行了随机效应两两和一期剂量-反应荟萃分析。结果meta分析纳入19项研究,217459例患者。我们报告了基线血小板计数与随访时全因死亡、MACE和大出血之间的j型关系。在低血小板计数(250×109/L)时,出血事件的风险超过血栓形成事件的风险。两两荟萃分析显示,初始血小板计数与出院后全因死亡、大出血(血小板减少:HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.30 ~ 1.49;HR 1.51, 95% CI分别为1.15至2.00)和未来因任何原因死亡和MACE(血小板增多:HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.29至1.98;HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.22 ~ 1.78)。结论血小板计数低与主要出血风险相关,而血小板计数高仅与缺血性事件相关。普洛斯彼罗注册号CRD42021283270。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A retrospective review of empiric acyclovir prescribing practices for suspected viral central nervous system infections: A single-centre study. Cortical Morphology in Cannabis Use Disorder: Implications for Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Treatment. Socioeconomic status and entrepreneurial networking responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Cardiac microstructural alterations measured by echocardiography identify sex-specific risk for heart failure. Aspirin
×
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