Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2024
Coronary calcified nodules versus nonnodular coronary calcifications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Oliveri F, Van Oort M J H, Al Amri I, Bingen B O, Van der Kley F, Jukema J W, Jurado-Roman A, Montero Cabezas J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on severely calcified coronary lesions is challenging. Coronary calcified nodule (CN) refers to an eccentric and protruding coronary calcification associated with plaque vulnerability and adverse clinical events. This study aims to conduct an extensive review of CNs, focusing on its prognostic impact in comparison with nonnodular coronary calcification (N-CN).
METHOD: A systematic literature review on PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases was conducted for relevant articles. Observational studies or randomized controlled trials comparing CNs and N-CNs were included.
RESULTS: Five studies comparing CNs and N-CNs were pertinent for inclusion. The total number of individuals across these studies was 1456. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic, clinical, and angiographic data between the CN and N-CN groups. Intracoronary imaging was always utilized. At follow-up, CNs were associated with significantly increased, target vessel revascularization [odds ratio (OR) 2.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.39-3.36, P-value < 0.01, I2 = 0%] and stent thrombosis (OR 9.29; 95% CI: 1.67-51.79, P-value = 0.01, I2 = 0%) compared with N-CN. A trend for greater cardiac death was also assessed in the CN group (OR 1.75; 95% CI: 0.98-3.13, P-value = 0.06, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSION: CN has a significantly negative impact on outcomes when compared with N-CN.
METHOD: A systematic literature review on PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases was conducted for relevant articles. Observational studies or randomized controlled trials comparing CNs and N-CNs were included.
RESULTS: Five studies comparing CNs and N-CNs were pertinent for inclusion. The total number of individuals across these studies was 1456. There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic, clinical, and angiographic data between the CN and N-CN groups. Intracoronary imaging was always utilized. At follow-up, CNs were associated with significantly increased, target vessel revascularization [odds ratio (OR) 2.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.39-3.36, P-value < 0.01, I2 = 0%] and stent thrombosis (OR 9.29; 95% CI: 1.67-51.79, P-value = 0.01, I2 = 0%) compared with N-CN. A trend for greater cardiac death was also assessed in the CN group (OR 1.75; 95% CI: 0.98-3.13, P-value = 0.06, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSION: CN has a significantly negative impact on outcomes when compared with N-CN.