老年st段抬高型心肌梗死患者的完全血运重建术vs单纯罪魁祸首血运重建术:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Dae Yong Park, Jiun-Ruey Hu, Jennifer Frampton, Jennifer Rymer, Abdulla Al Damluji, Michael G Nanna
{"title":"老年st段抬高型心肌梗死患者的完全血运重建术vs单纯罪魁祸首血运重建术:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析","authors":"Dae Yong Park, Jiun-Ruey Hu, Jennifer Frampton, Jennifer Rymer, Abdulla Al Damluji, Michael G Nanna","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of complete revascularization (CR) versus culprit-only revascularization (COR) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have shifted the recommendation for CR from class III to class I in the AHA/ACC/SCAI guidelines, but it remains unclear if the benefit of CR over COR extends to older adults, who have greater bleeding risk, comorbidity burden, and complexity of lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to place the results of the previous RCTs in the context of the recently published FIRE trial and the subgroup analysis of the COMPLETE trial in adults ≥75 years old.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the literature from inception to October 21, 2023. RCTs of CR versus COR in STEMI were selected if it reported results for older adults, defined as either age > 65 years or > 75 years. Integrated hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using random effects models. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were major bleeding and contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this meta-analysis of 5 RCTs including 3513 older adults, CR was associated with a lower hazard of MACE than COR (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.99, p = 0.047). Sensitivity analysis including trials that defined older adults as age > 65 years resulted in a lower hazard of MACE with CR versus COR, but not in trials that defined older adults as age > 75 years. There was no difference in the hazard of major bleeding or CA-AKI between CR and COR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this largest meta-analysis to date investigating CR compared with COR in older adults with STEMI, CR was associated with reduced MACE without a concomitant increase in major bleeding or CA-AKI compared with COR. These results can help cardiologists and geriatricians involved in shared decision-making with patients and caregivers when contemplating whether to pursue CR in older adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in older adults with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Dae Yong Park, Jiun-Ruey Hu, Jennifer Frampton, Jennifer Rymer, Abdulla Al Damluji, Michael G Nanna\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jgs.19295\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of complete revascularization (CR) versus culprit-only revascularization (COR) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have shifted the recommendation for CR from class III to class I in the AHA/ACC/SCAI guidelines, but it remains unclear if the benefit of CR over COR extends to older adults, who have greater bleeding risk, comorbidity burden, and complexity of lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to place the results of the previous RCTs in the context of the recently published FIRE trial and the subgroup analysis of the COMPLETE trial in adults ≥75 years old.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the literature from inception to October 21, 2023. RCTs of CR versus COR in STEMI were selected if it reported results for older adults, defined as either age > 65 years or > 75 years. Integrated hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using random effects models. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were major bleeding and contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In this meta-analysis of 5 RCTs including 3513 older adults, CR was associated with a lower hazard of MACE than COR (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.99, p = 0.047). Sensitivity analysis including trials that defined older adults as age > 65 years resulted in a lower hazard of MACE with CR versus COR, but not in trials that defined older adults as age > 75 years. There was no difference in the hazard of major bleeding or CA-AKI between CR and COR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this largest meta-analysis to date investigating CR compared with COR in older adults with STEMI, CR was associated with reduced MACE without a concomitant increase in major bleeding or CA-AKI compared with COR. These results can help cardiologists and geriatricians involved in shared decision-making with patients and caregivers when contemplating whether to pursue CR in older adults.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19295\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:st段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者完全血运重建术(CR)与单纯罪犯血运重建术(COR)的随机对照试验(RCTs)已经将AHA/ACC/SCAI指南中推荐的完全血运重建术(CR)从III级改为I级,但目前尚不清楚CR优于COR的益处是否适用于出血风险更大、合病负担更重、病变更复杂的老年人。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,将之前的随机对照试验的结果与最近发表的FIRE试验和COMPLETE试验的亚组分析相结合,受试者为≥75岁的成年人。方法:检索自成立至2023年10月21日的文献。选择STEMI中CR与COR的随机对照试验,如果它报告了老年人的结果,定义为65岁或75岁。采用随机效应模型计算综合风险比(hr)。主要终点为主要不良心血管事件(MACE)。次要结局是大出血和对比剂相关急性肾损伤(CA-AKI)。结果:在这项包含3513名老年人的5项随机对照试验的荟萃分析中,CR与MACE的风险比COR低(HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.99, p = 0.047)。敏感性分析包括将老年人定义为bb0 ~ 65岁的试验,结果显示CR与COR合并MACE的风险较低,但在将老年人定义为bb1 ~ 75岁的试验中没有出现这种情况。结论:在这项迄今为止最大的荟萃分析中,研究了老年STEMI患者的CR与COR的比较,CR与MACE降低相关,而与COR相比,CR并未伴随大出血或CA-AKI的增加,这些结果可以帮助心脏病学家和老年医生在考虑是否对老年人进行CR时与患者和护理人员共同决策。
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
Complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in older adults with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of complete revascularization (CR) versus culprit-only revascularization (COR) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have shifted the recommendation for CR from class III to class I in the AHA/ACC/SCAI guidelines, but it remains unclear if the benefit of CR over COR extends to older adults, who have greater bleeding risk, comorbidity burden, and complexity of lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to place the results of the previous RCTs in the context of the recently published FIRE trial and the subgroup analysis of the COMPLETE trial in adults ≥75 years old.

Methods: We searched the literature from inception to October 21, 2023. RCTs of CR versus COR in STEMI were selected if it reported results for older adults, defined as either age > 65 years or > 75 years. Integrated hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using random effects models. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were major bleeding and contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI).

Results: In this meta-analysis of 5 RCTs including 3513 older adults, CR was associated with a lower hazard of MACE than COR (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.99, p = 0.047). Sensitivity analysis including trials that defined older adults as age > 65 years resulted in a lower hazard of MACE with CR versus COR, but not in trials that defined older adults as age > 75 years. There was no difference in the hazard of major bleeding or CA-AKI between CR and COR.

Conclusions: In this largest meta-analysis to date investigating CR compared with COR in older adults with STEMI, CR was associated with reduced MACE without a concomitant increase in major bleeding or CA-AKI compared with COR. These results can help cardiologists and geriatricians involved in shared decision-making with patients and caregivers when contemplating whether to pursue CR in older adults.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Application of an Electronic Frailty Index to Identify High-Risk Older Adults Using Electronic Health Record Data. Cancer and Accelerated Aging Research at the National Institutes of Health, 2013-2023: A Grant Portfolio Analysis. Home-Based Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for Community-Dwelling, At-Risk, Frail Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Individualized Net Benefit of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults in SPRINT. Inspiring Undergraduate Student Training in Alzheimer's Research (USTAR): Training the Next Generation of Aging Scientists.
×
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