Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024
Complete revascularization versus culprit-only revascularization in older adults with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Park Dae Yong, Hu Jiun-Ruey, Frampton Jennifer, Rymer Jennifer, Al Damluji Abdulla, Nanna Michael G
Аннотация
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.
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.