Search

Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at high risk of thrombosis. However, bleeding-related complications during antithrombotic therapy remain a major barrier to effective treatment and can often lead to adverse outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with ACS after PCI. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ACS after PCI were identified from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP database until August 2024. The outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, short-term bleeding, revascularization, and retransfusion. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 softwares. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. Results: A total of 70,199 patients from 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed in this review. There were no significant differences between the bivalirudin and heparin groups in terms of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis within 30 days, or subacute stent thrombosis. Specifically, the incidence of short-term bleeding (P = 0.001) and retransfusion (P = 0.001) was significantly lower in the bivalirudin group compared to the heparin group. Conversely, the incidence of acute stent thrombosis (P < 0.0001) and revascularization (P = 0.009) was significantly higher in the bivalirudin group. Conclusions: Compared with heparin, bivalirudin has definite anticoagulant effect in patients with acute myocardial infarction after PCI, and the risk of bleeding and the incidence of retransfusion were lower in the bivalirudin group. This review helps doctors in PCI management choose bivalirudin or heparin more precisely based on patients' conditions for better treatment and fewer adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several studies suggested that depression was associated with poor prognosis following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in coronary heart disease (CHD), whereas other studies showed that there were no associations between depression and poor outcomes. Objectives: Considering these problems, this meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between depression and clinical outcomes after PCI. Methods: Articles published before July 2021 were analyzed from the databases: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline, and Google Scholar. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed to generate a pooled effect size and 95% CI with a random or fixed effects model. Q test and I2 were used to assess heterogeneities between studies. Results: The meta-analysis indicated that depression was associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after PCI with a random effects model (HR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.33–2.68, I2 = 57.0%, p = 0.023). The study indicated that depression was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality after PCI with a fixed effects model (HR = 1.71, 95% CI: 1.43–2.05, I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.756). The study indicated no significant association between depression and risk of repeat revascularization after PCI with a random effects model (HR = 2.10, 95% CI: 0.96–4.58, I2 = 68.9%, p = 0.022). Conclusion: Results indicated that depression is associated with adverse clinical outcomes in CHD patients' post-PCI. Appropriate mental health check and psychological treatment may be necessary for the prognosis of CHD patients who receive PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]