Search

Background/purpose: It is unclear whether coronary physiology or coronary angiography (CA)-guided strategy is the more preferable approach for deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy of various PCI strategies through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)., Methods/materials: We searched multiple databases for RCTs investigating the impact of the following strategies for the purpose of determining whether or not to defer PCI: fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, quantitative flow ratio (QFR), and CA. We conducted a network meta-analysis for trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis. We performed a subgroup analysis for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Results: Our search identified 12 eligible RCTs including a total of 13,177 patients. QFR-guided PCI was associated with reduced MACE, MI, and TLR compared with CA-guided PCI (relative risk (RR) 0.68; 95 % confidence interval (CI] [0.49 to 0.94], RR 0.58; 95 % CI [0.36 to 0.96], and RR 0.58; 95 % CI [0.38 to 0.91], respectively). There were no significant differences in any pairs for all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or stent thrombosis. QFR was ranked the best in most outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of the ACS cohort, there were no significant differences in MACE between any comparisons., Conclusions: QFR was associated with reduced MACE, MI, and TLR compared with CA, and ranked the best in most outcomes. However, this was not applied in the ACS cohort., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Various durations and de-escalation strategies of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) have been tested in randomized controlled trials (RCT)s. However, evidence by specific ACS subtype is unknown. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched in February 2023. RCTs on DAPT strategies included STEMI or NSTE-ACS patients with standard DAPT (12 months) with clopidogrel or potent P2Y 12 inhibitors, short-term DAPT (≤6 months) followed by potent P2Y 12 inhibitors or aspirin, unguided de-escalation from potent P2Y 12 inhibitors to low-dose potent P2Y 12 inhibitors or clopidogrel at one month, and guided selection with genotype or platelet function tests were identified. The primary outcome was the net adverse clinical events (NACE) defined as a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and clinically relevant bleeding events. Twenty RCTs with a combined total population of 24,745 STEMI and 37,891 NSTE-ACS patients were included. In STEMI patients, unguided de-escalation strategy was associated with a lower rate of NACE compared with standard DAPT using potent P2Y 12 inhibitors (HR:0.57; 95% CI:0.34–0.96) without increased risk of MACE. In NSTE-ACS patients, unguided de-escalation strategy was associated with a lower rate of NACE compared with the guided selection strategy (HR:0.65; 95% CI:0.47–0.90), standard DAPT using potent P2Y 12 inhibitors (HR:0.62; 95% CI:0.50–0.78) and standard DAPT using clopidogrel (HR:0.73; 95% CI:0.55–0.98) without increased risk of MACE. Unguided de-escalation strategy was associated with a reduced risk of NACE and may be the most effective DAPT strategy for STEMI and NSTE-ACS. • Various de-escalation strategies of DAPT for STEMI or NSTE-ACS were investigated. • Twenty RCTs of 62,636 patients were included to conduct the network meta-analysis. • Unguided de-escalation strategy was associated with a reduced risk of NACE • Unguided de-escalation may be the most effective for STEMI and NSTE-ACS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with concomitant multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with poor outcomes. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit-lesion only (CLO) as compared with a MV PCI approach to revascularization remains uncertain. Our objective is to gain a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of CLO as compared with MV PCI in patients with STEMI by conducting an updated meta-analysis. Methods A comprehensive search of PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register, the ClinicalTrials.gov Website, and Google Scholar databases of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. Results Seven RCTs were included, enrolling a total of 2006 patients. We found that there was a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43–0.90), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27–0.80), and repeat revascularization (RRV) (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30–0.51) favoring MV over the CLO approach for patients undergoing primary PCI. The number needed to treat in order to prevent one CV mortality, RRV, or MACE event is 47, 11, and 16 patients, respectively. No differences were observed between MV vs. CLO PCI for subsequent myocardial infarction (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40–1.39), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53–1.15), non-cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.74–2.48), all-bleeding events (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.40–1.65), contrast-induced nephropathy (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.33–1.54), and stroke (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.47–3.46). Conclusions MV PCI significantly reduces the rate of MACE, CV mortality, and RRV without significant harm as compared to CLO PCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We evaluated the impact of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) on the frequency of stent thrombosis (ST), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), and cardiac death in randomized controlled trials comparing the EES to non–everolimus-eluting drug-eluting stents (EE-DES). Background: Whether or not the unique properties of the EES translate into reductions in ST remains unknown. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Internet sources for articles comparing outcomes between EES and non–EE-DES without language or date restriction. Randomized controlled trials reporting the frequency of ST were included. Variables relating to patient and study characteristics and clinical endpoints were extracted. Results: We identified 13 randomized trials (n = 17,101) with a weighted mean follow-up of 21.7 months. Compared with non–EE-DES, the EES significantly reduced ST (relative risk [RR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38 to 0.78; p = 0.001), TVR (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.92; p = 0.004), and MI (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.96; p = 0.02). There was no difference in cardiac mortality between the groups (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.16; p = 0.38). The treatment effect was consistent by different follow-up times and duration of clopidogrel use. The treatment effects increased with higher baseline risks of the respective control groups with the strongest correlation observed for ST (R2 = 0.89, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Intracoronary implantation of the EES is associated with highly significant reductions in ST with concordant reductions in TVR and MI compared to non–EE-DES. Whether these effects apply to different patient subgroups and DES types merits further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]