慢性冠状动脉综合征经皮冠状动脉血运重建与药物治疗的比较:随机对照试验的最新荟萃分析。

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL European Journal of Clinical Investigation Pub Date : 2024-08-21 DOI:10.1111/eci.14303
Giuseppe Panuccio, Nicole Carabetta, Daniele Torella, Salvatore De Rosa
{"title":"慢性冠状动脉综合征经皮冠状动脉血运重建与药物治疗的比较:随机对照试验的最新荟萃分析。","authors":"Giuseppe Panuccio,&nbsp;Nicole Carabetta,&nbsp;Daniele Torella,&nbsp;Salvatore De Rosa","doi":"10.1111/eci.14303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a main cause of morbidity and mortality. The effectiveness of coronary revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is still debated. Our recent study showed the superiority of coronary revascularization over optimal medical therapy (OMT) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). The recent publication of the ORBITA-2 trial suggested superiority of percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI) in reducing angina and improving quality of life. Therefore, we aimed to provide an updated meta-analysis evaluating the impact of PCI on both clinical outcomes and angina in CCS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Relevant studies were screened in PubMed/Medline until 08/01/2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCI to OMT in CCS were selected. The primary outcome was CV death. Secondary outcomes were MI, all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding and angina severity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Nineteen RCTs involving 8616 patients were included. Median follow-up duration was 3.3 years. Revascularization significantly reduced CV death (4.2% vs. 5.5%; OR = .77; 95% CI .62–.96, <i>p</i> = .02). Subgroup analyses favoured revascularization in patients without chronic total occlusions (CTOs) (<i>p</i> = .052) and those aged &lt;65 years (<i>p</i> = .02). Finally, a follow-up duration beyond 3 years showed increased benefit of coronary revascularization (<i>p</i> = .04). Secondary outcomes analyses showed no significant differences, except for a lower angina severity in the revascularization group according to the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (<i>p</i> = .04) and to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification (<i>p</i> = .005).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>PCI compared to OMT significantly reduces CV mortality and angina severity, improving quality of life in CCS patients. This benefit was larger without CTOs, in patients aged &lt;65 years and with follow-up duration beyond 3 years.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12013,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","volume":"54 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.14303","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous coronary revascularization versus medical therapy in chronic coronary syndromes: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials\",\"authors\":\"Giuseppe Panuccio,&nbsp;Nicole Carabetta,&nbsp;Daniele Torella,&nbsp;Salvatore De Rosa\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/eci.14303\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a main cause of morbidity and mortality. The effectiveness of coronary revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is still debated. Our recent study showed the superiority of coronary revascularization over optimal medical therapy (OMT) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). The recent publication of the ORBITA-2 trial suggested superiority of percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI) in reducing angina and improving quality of life. Therefore, we aimed to provide an updated meta-analysis evaluating the impact of PCI on both clinical outcomes and angina in CCS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Relevant studies were screened in PubMed/Medline until 08/01/2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCI to OMT in CCS were selected. The primary outcome was CV death. Secondary outcomes were MI, all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding and angina severity.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Nineteen RCTs involving 8616 patients were included. Median follow-up duration was 3.3 years. Revascularization significantly reduced CV death (4.2% vs. 5.5%; OR = .77; 95% CI .62–.96, <i>p</i> = .02). Subgroup analyses favoured revascularization in patients without chronic total occlusions (CTOs) (<i>p</i> = .052) and those aged &lt;65 years (<i>p</i> = .02). Finally, a follow-up duration beyond 3 years showed increased benefit of coronary revascularization (<i>p</i> = .04). Secondary outcomes analyses showed no significant differences, except for a lower angina severity in the revascularization group according to the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (<i>p</i> = .04) and to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification (<i>p</i> = .005).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>PCI compared to OMT significantly reduces CV mortality and angina severity, improving quality of life in CCS patients. This benefit was larger without CTOs, in patients aged &lt;65 years and with follow-up duration beyond 3 years.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Clinical Investigation\",\"volume\":\"54 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.14303\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Clinical Investigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.14303\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.14303","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:冠状动脉疾病(CAD)是发病和死亡的主要原因:冠状动脉疾病(CAD)是发病和死亡的主要原因。冠状动脉血运重建对慢性冠状动脉综合征(CCS)的疗效仍存在争议。我们最近的研究表明,在降低心血管疾病(CV)死亡率和心肌梗死(MI)方面,冠状动脉血运重建优于最佳药物治疗(OMT)。最近发表的 ORBITA-2 试验表明,经皮冠状动脉血运重建(PCI)在减少心绞痛和改善生活质量方面更具优势。因此,我们旨在提供最新的荟萃分析,评估经皮冠状动脉再通术对慢性心肌梗死患者临床预后和心绞痛的影响:方法:在PubMed/Medline上筛选了截至2024年1月8日的相关研究。方法:在PubMed/Medline上筛选了截至2024年1月8日的相关研究,并选择了在CCS中比较PCI和OMT的随机对照试验(RCT)。主要结果为冠心病死亡。次要结果为心肌梗死、全因死亡率、中风、大出血和心绞痛严重程度:结果:共纳入19项RCT,涉及8616名患者。中位随访时间为 3.3 年。血管重建大大降低了心血管疾病的死亡率(4.2% vs. 5.5%;OR = .77;95% CI .62-.96,P = .02)。亚组分析结果显示,无慢性全闭塞(CTO)的患者(p = .052)和年龄较大的患者更倾向于接受血管重建术:与 OMT 相比,PCI 能明显降低 CCS 患者的 CV 死亡率和心绞痛严重程度,改善生活质量。在没有 CTO 的情况下,这种益处在年龄较大的患者中更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Percutaneous coronary revascularization versus medical therapy in chronic coronary syndromes: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a main cause of morbidity and mortality. The effectiveness of coronary revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is still debated. Our recent study showed the superiority of coronary revascularization over optimal medical therapy (OMT) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). The recent publication of the ORBITA-2 trial suggested superiority of percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI) in reducing angina and improving quality of life. Therefore, we aimed to provide an updated meta-analysis evaluating the impact of PCI on both clinical outcomes and angina in CCS.

Methods

Relevant studies were screened in PubMed/Medline until 08/01/2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCI to OMT in CCS were selected. The primary outcome was CV death. Secondary outcomes were MI, all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding and angina severity.

Results

Nineteen RCTs involving 8616 patients were included. Median follow-up duration was 3.3 years. Revascularization significantly reduced CV death (4.2% vs. 5.5%; OR = .77; 95% CI .62–.96, p = .02). Subgroup analyses favoured revascularization in patients without chronic total occlusions (CTOs) (p = .052) and those aged <65 years (p = .02). Finally, a follow-up duration beyond 3 years showed increased benefit of coronary revascularization (p = .04). Secondary outcomes analyses showed no significant differences, except for a lower angina severity in the revascularization group according to the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (p = .04) and to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification (p = .005).

Conclusions

PCI compared to OMT significantly reduces CV mortality and angina severity, improving quality of life in CCS patients. This benefit was larger without CTOs, in patients aged <65 years and with follow-up duration beyond 3 years.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
3.60%
发文量
192
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: EJCI considers any original contribution from the most sophisticated basic molecular sciences to applied clinical and translational research and evidence-based medicine across a broad range of subspecialties. The EJCI publishes reports of high-quality research that pertain to the genetic, molecular, cellular, or physiological basis of human biology and disease, as well as research that addresses prevalence, diagnosis, course, treatment, and prevention of disease. We are primarily interested in studies directly pertinent to humans, but submission of robust in vitro and animal work is also encouraged. Interdisciplinary work and research using innovative methods and combinations of laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological methodologies and techniques is of great interest to the journal. Several categories of manuscripts (for detailed description see below) are considered: editorials, original articles (also including randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses), reviews (narrative reviews), opinion articles (including debates, perspectives and commentaries); and letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information [225Ac]Ac-PSMA for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Machine learning for stroke in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but without atrial fibrillation: A post-hoc analysis of the WARCEF trial. Structural aspects of CEACAM1 interactions. Clinical measures in chronic neuropathic pain are related to the Kennedy and endocannabinoid pathways.
×
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