Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2023
Comparison among various physiology and angiography-guided strategies for deferring percutaneous coronary intervention: A network meta-analysis.
СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание 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.
Kiyohara Yuko, Kishino Yoshikazu, Ueyama Hiroki A, Takahashi Tatsunori, Kobayashi Yuhei, Takagi Hisato, Wiley Jose, Kuno Toshiki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: It is unclear whether coronary physiology or coronary angiography (CA)-guided strategy is the more preferable approach for deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy of various PCI strategies through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS/MATERIALS: We searched multiple databases for RCTs investigating the impact of the following strategies for the purpose of determining whether or not to defer PCI: fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, quantitative flow ratio (QFR), and CA. We conducted a network meta-analysis for trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis. We performed a subgroup analysis for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
RESULTS: Our search identified 12 eligible RCTs including a total of 13,177 patients. QFR-guided PCI was associated with reduced MACE, MI, and TLR compared with CA-guided PCI (relative risk (RR) 0.68; 95 % confidence interval (CI] [0.49 to 0.94], RR 0.58; 95 % CI [0.36 to 0.96], and RR 0.58; 95 % CI [0.38 to 0.91], respectively). There were no significant differences in any pairs for all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or stent thrombosis. QFR was ranked the best in most outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of the ACS cohort, there were no significant differences in MACE between any comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS: QFR was associated with reduced MACE, MI, and TLR compared with CA, and ranked the best in most outcomes. However, this was not applied in the ACS cohort.
METHODS/MATERIALS: We searched multiple databases for RCTs investigating the impact of the following strategies for the purpose of determining whether or not to defer PCI: fractional flow reserve, instantaneous wave-free ratio, quantitative flow ratio (QFR), and CA. We conducted a network meta-analysis for trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis. We performed a subgroup analysis for those with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
RESULTS: Our search identified 12 eligible RCTs including a total of 13,177 patients. QFR-guided PCI was associated with reduced MACE, MI, and TLR compared with CA-guided PCI (relative risk (RR) 0.68; 95 % confidence interval (CI] [0.49 to 0.94], RR 0.58; 95 % CI [0.36 to 0.96], and RR 0.58; 95 % CI [0.38 to 0.91], respectively). There were no significant differences in any pairs for all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or stent thrombosis. QFR was ranked the best in most outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of the ACS cohort, there were no significant differences in MACE between any comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS: QFR was associated with reduced MACE, MI, and TLR compared with CA, and ranked the best in most outcomes. However, this was not applied in the ACS cohort.