Medical therapy versus percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft in stable coronary artery disease; a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

IF 0.5 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS ARYA Atherosclerosis Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI:10.48305/arya.2022.24252
Majid Davari, Mende Mensa Sorato, Behzad Fatemi, Soheila Rezaei, Hamid Sanei
{"title":"Medical therapy versus percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft in stable coronary artery disease; a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.","authors":"Majid Davari,&nbsp;Mende Mensa Sorato,&nbsp;Behzad Fatemi,&nbsp;Soheila Rezaei,&nbsp;Hamid Sanei","doi":"10.48305/arya.2022.24252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is the first cause of mortality in the world. Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common IHD. Medical therapy (MT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are three strategies for the management of this disease. The main aim of this study was the comparison of MT with PCI or CABG in terms of cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization (UR), stroke, and freedom from angina in managing stable CAD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus were searched. Two reviewers independently appraised the titles and abstracted data of the identified studies. After the Full-text reviewing phase, eligible studies were analyzed through the random-effect meta-analysis method. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted for the robustness of findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The pooled RR of CV mortality associated with MT compared with PCI and CABG was 1.22 and 1.385, respectively. Overall, The RR of MT associated with MI, UR, stroke, and freedom from angina compared with PCI was 1.001, 1.151, 0.799, and 0.801, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results revealed no statistically significant difference between MT and PCI in terms of studied primary outcomes. The findings also highlighted that there is no statistically significant difference between MT and CABG in terms of CV mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":46477,"journal":{"name":"ARYA Atherosclerosis","volume":"18 3","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/26/0d/ARYA-18-8-2288.PMC9931946.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARYA Atherosclerosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48305/arya.2022.24252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is the first cause of mortality in the world. Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common IHD. Medical therapy (MT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are three strategies for the management of this disease. The main aim of this study was the comparison of MT with PCI or CABG in terms of cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization (UR), stroke, and freedom from angina in managing stable CAD.

Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus were searched. Two reviewers independently appraised the titles and abstracted data of the identified studies. After the Full-text reviewing phase, eligible studies were analyzed through the random-effect meta-analysis method. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted for the robustness of findings.

Results: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The pooled RR of CV mortality associated with MT compared with PCI and CABG was 1.22 and 1.385, respectively. Overall, The RR of MT associated with MI, UR, stroke, and freedom from angina compared with PCI was 1.001, 1.151, 0.799, and 0.801, respectively.

Conclusion: Our results revealed no statistically significant difference between MT and PCI in terms of studied primary outcomes. The findings also highlighted that there is no statistically significant difference between MT and CABG in terms of CV mortality.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
药物治疗与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗稳定性冠状动脉疾病随机临床试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:缺血性心脏病(IHD)是世界上第一大死亡原因。稳定性冠状动脉疾病(CAD)是最常见的IHD。药物治疗(MT)、经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)是治疗这种疾病的三种策略。本研究的主要目的是比较MT与PCI或CABG在心血管(CV)死亡率、心肌梗死(MI)、计划外血运重建术(UR)、卒中和不发生心绞痛方面的比较。方法:检索Cochrane中央对照试验注册库、Embase、PubMed和Scopus。两名审稿人独立评估了已确定研究的标题和摘要数据。在全文综述阶段结束后,通过随机效应荟萃分析方法对符合条件的研究进行分析。最后,对结果的稳健性进行敏感性分析。结果:纳入9项随机对照试验(RCTs)。与PCI和CABG相比,MT相关的CV死亡率的总RR分别为1.22和1.385。总的来说,与PCI相比,MT与心肌梗死、UR、卒中和无心绞痛相关的RR分别为1.001、1.151、0.799和0.801。结论:我们的研究结果显示MT和PCI在研究的主要结果方面没有统计学上的显著差异。研究结果还强调,在CV死亡率方面,MT和CABG之间没有统计学上的显著差异。
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
ARYA Atherosclerosis
ARYA Atherosclerosis CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cardiomyopathy discovered during pregnancy: Insights from speckle tracking echocardiography in a cohort of pregnant patients. Cardioprotective effects of aerobic training in diabetic rats: Reducing cardiac apoptotic indices and oxidative stress for a healthier heart. Effects of balloon pulmonary valvuloplasty on longitudinal changes in right ventricular strain and strain rate in pediatric pulmonary stenosis. Forty-seven years of Iranian cardiovascular disease scientific publication: A bibliometric and altmetric analysis. The assessment of no-reflow phenomenon incidence in early versus delayed percutaneous coronary intervention following a primary fibrinolysis.
×
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