Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024
Immediate Versus Staged Complete Revascularization for Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Elbadawi Ayman, Hamed Mohamed, Gad Mohamed, Elseidy Sheref A, Barghout Mohamed, Jneid Hani, Mamas Mamas A, Alfonso Fernando, Elgendy Islam Y
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The comparative outcomes with immediate, staged in-hospital, and staged out-of-hospital complete revascularization for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease remain unclear.
METHODS AND RESULTS: An electronic search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases was performed through August 2023 for randomized trials evaluating immediate, staged in-hospital, and staged out-of-hospital complete revascularization for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The final analysis included 9 trials with 4270 patients. The weighted follow-up duration was 13.8 months. On pairwise meta-analysis, there were no statistically significant differences between immediate versus staged nonculprit percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in MACEs (odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54-1.16]). Network meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in MACEs with staged in-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 1.29-[95% CI, 0.91-1.82]) compared with immediate nonculprit PCI, while there were higher odds of MACEs with out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 1.67-[95% CI, 1.21-2.30]) compared with immediate nonculprit PCI. Compared with immediate nonculprit PCI, there were higher odds of ischemia-driven repeat revascularization with staged out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 2.26-[95% CI, 1.37-3.72]), but not with in-hospital staged nonculprit PCI. There were no significant differences for the other outcomes among the 3 strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease, an immediate nonculprit PCI approach was associated with similar clinical outcomes to the staged nonculprit PCI approach. The staged out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI approach was associated with a higher incidence of MACEs compared with the other strategies, which was driven by higher risk for ischemia-driven repeat revascularization.
METHODS AND RESULTS: An electronic search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases was performed through August 2023 for randomized trials evaluating immediate, staged in-hospital, and staged out-of-hospital complete revascularization for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The final analysis included 9 trials with 4270 patients. The weighted follow-up duration was 13.8 months. On pairwise meta-analysis, there were no statistically significant differences between immediate versus staged nonculprit percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in MACEs (odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54-1.16]). Network meta-analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference in MACEs with staged in-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 1.29-[95% CI, 0.91-1.82]) compared with immediate nonculprit PCI, while there were higher odds of MACEs with out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 1.67-[95% CI, 1.21-2.30]) compared with immediate nonculprit PCI. Compared with immediate nonculprit PCI, there were higher odds of ischemia-driven repeat revascularization with staged out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI (odds ratio, 2.26-[95% CI, 1.37-3.72]), but not with in-hospital staged nonculprit PCI. There were no significant differences for the other outcomes among the 3 strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease, an immediate nonculprit PCI approach was associated with similar clinical outcomes to the staged nonculprit PCI approach. The staged out-of-hospital nonculprit PCI approach was associated with a higher incidence of MACEs compared with the other strategies, which was driven by higher risk for ischemia-driven repeat revascularization.