Search

Background: Patients with prediabetes are at increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the association between prediabetes and adverse clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is inconsistent, in contrast to outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Thus, this meta-analysis evaluated the impact of dysglycaemia on PCI outcomes. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials. gov databases were systematically reviewed from inception of databases until June 2022. In 17 studies, outcomes of PCI in patients with prediabetes were compared with patients who were normoglycaemic, and patients with DM. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up. Results: Included were 12 prospective and five retrospective studies, with 11,868, 14,894 and 13,536 patients undergoing PCI in the prediabetes, normoglycaemic and DM groups, respectively. Normoglycaemic patients had a statistically lower risk of all- cause mortality, (risk ratio [RR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.84), myocardial infarction (MI; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95) and cardiac mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.87) compared with prediabetic patients undergoing PCI at the longest follow- up. Patients with prediabetes had a lower risk of all- cause mortality (RR=0.72 [95% CI 0.53-0.97]) and cardiac mortality (RR =0.47 [95% CI 0.23-0.93]) compared with patients with DM who underwent PCI. Conclusion: Among patients who underwent PCI for CAD, the risk of all- cause and cardiac mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events and MI in prediabetic patients was higher compared with normoglycaemic patients but lower compared with patients with DM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), transradial access (TRA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with less bleeding and mortality than transfemoral access (TFA). However, patients in cardiogenic shock (CS) are more often treated via TFA. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of TRA vs. TFA in CS., Methods: Systematic review was performed querying PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov for studies comparing TRA to TFA in PCI for CS. Outcomes included in-hospital, 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, major and access site bleeding, TIMI3 (thrombolytics in myocardial infarction) flow, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects models., Results: Six prospective and eight retrospective studies (TRA, n = 8032; TFA, n = 23 031) were identified. TRA was associated with lower in-hospital (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.66, P < 0.0001), 30-day and ≥1-year mortality, as well as less in-hospital major (RR 0.41, 0.31-0.56, P < 0.001) and access site bleeding (RR 0.42, 0.23-0.77, P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences in post-PCI coronary flow grade, procedural success, fluoroscopy time, and contrast volume between TRA vs. TFA., Conclusions: In PCI for STEMI with CS, TRA is associated with significantly lower mortality and bleeding complications than TFA while achieving similar TIMI3 flow and procedural success rates., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)