PloS one · 2016
Effect of Pioglitazone in Preventing In-Stent Restenosis after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализНазвание 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.
Zhao Shi-Jie, Zhong Zhao-Shuang, Qi Guo-Xian, Shi Li-Ye, Chen Ling, Tian Wen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The benefits of pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of pioglitazone on prevention of in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients with T2DM after PCI.
METHODS: All full-text published relevant studies compared the effect of pioglitazone with control group (placebo or no pioglitazone treatment) on ISR in patients with T2DM after PCI were identified by searching the databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Science through October 2015. The endpoints were defined as the rate of ISR, late lumen loss, in-stent neointimal volume, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
RESULTS: Six studies (5 RCTs and 1 retrospective study), comprising 503 patients, were included into this meta-analysis. In the pioglitazone group, as compared with the control group, the risk ratio for ISR was 0.48 (I2 = 14.5%, P = 0.322; 95%CI 0.35 to 0.68, P<0.001), the risk ratio for TLR was 0.58 (I2 = 6.0%, P = 0.363; 95%CI 0.38 to 0.87, P = 0.009). The result showed there was no association between the use of pioglitazone and the events of MACE (I2 = 36.7%, P = 0.209; RR 0.56, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.05, P = 0.071). For the considerable heterogeneity, further analysis was not suitable for the endpoints of late lumen loss (I2 = 81.9%, P<0.001) and neointimal volume (I2 = 75.9%, P = 0.016).
CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of pioglitazone was associated with a reduction in ISR and TLR in T2DM patients suffering from PCI, except the incidence of MACE.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of pioglitazone on prevention of in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients with T2DM after PCI.
METHODS: All full-text published relevant studies compared the effect of pioglitazone with control group (placebo or no pioglitazone treatment) on ISR in patients with T2DM after PCI were identified by searching the databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Science through October 2015. The endpoints were defined as the rate of ISR, late lumen loss, in-stent neointimal volume, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
RESULTS: Six studies (5 RCTs and 1 retrospective study), comprising 503 patients, were included into this meta-analysis. In the pioglitazone group, as compared with the control group, the risk ratio for ISR was 0.48 (I2 = 14.5%, P = 0.322; 95%CI 0.35 to 0.68, P<0.001), the risk ratio for TLR was 0.58 (I2 = 6.0%, P = 0.363; 95%CI 0.38 to 0.87, P = 0.009). The result showed there was no association between the use of pioglitazone and the events of MACE (I2 = 36.7%, P = 0.209; RR 0.56, 95%CI 0.30 to 1.05, P = 0.071). For the considerable heterogeneity, further analysis was not suitable for the endpoints of late lumen loss (I2 = 81.9%, P<0.001) and neointimal volume (I2 = 75.9%, P = 0.016).
CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of pioglitazone was associated with a reduction in ISR and TLR in T2DM patients suffering from PCI, except the incidence of MACE.