International journal of cardiology · 2014
Prolonged effectiveness of coronary artery bypass surgery versus drug-eluting stents in diabetics with multi-vessel disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Ariyaratne Thathya V, Ademi Zanfina, Yap Cheng-Hon, Billah Baki, Rosenfeldt Frank, Yan Bryan P, Reid Christopher M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Currently, the appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with diabetes (DM) and multi-vessel disease (MVD) is uncertain due to limited evidence from few randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of CABG versus PCI-DES in DM-MVD patients using an evidence-based approach.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted to compare the risk of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularisation, cerebrovascular events (CVE), and major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE).
RESULTS: A total of 1,837 and 3,052 DM-MVD patients were pooled from four RCTs (FREEDOM, SYNTAX, VA CARDS, and CARDia) and five non-randomised studies. At mean follow-up of 3 years, CABG compared with PCI-DES was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and MI in RCTs. By contrast, no significant differences were observed in the mean 3.5-year risk of all-cause mortality and MI in non-randomised trials. However, the risk of repeat revascularisations following PCI-DES compared with CABG was 2.3 (95% CI=1.8-2.8) and 3.0 (2.3-4.2)-folds higher in RCTs and non-randomised trials, respectively. Accordingly, the risk of MACCE at 3 years following CABG compared with PCI-DES was lower in both RCTs and non-randomised trials [0.65 (: 0.55-0.77); and 0.77 (0.60-0.98), respectively].
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our pooled results, we recommend CABG compared with PCI-DES for patients with DM-MVD. Although non-randomised trials suggest no additional survival-, MI-, and CVE- benefit from CABG over PCI-DES, these results should be interpreted with care.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted to compare the risk of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularisation, cerebrovascular events (CVE), and major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE).
RESULTS: A total of 1,837 and 3,052 DM-MVD patients were pooled from four RCTs (FREEDOM, SYNTAX, VA CARDS, and CARDia) and five non-randomised studies. At mean follow-up of 3 years, CABG compared with PCI-DES was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and MI in RCTs. By contrast, no significant differences were observed in the mean 3.5-year risk of all-cause mortality and MI in non-randomised trials. However, the risk of repeat revascularisations following PCI-DES compared with CABG was 2.3 (95% CI=1.8-2.8) and 3.0 (2.3-4.2)-folds higher in RCTs and non-randomised trials, respectively. Accordingly, the risk of MACCE at 3 years following CABG compared with PCI-DES was lower in both RCTs and non-randomised trials [0.65 (: 0.55-0.77); and 0.77 (0.60-0.98), respectively].
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our pooled results, we recommend CABG compared with PCI-DES for patients with DM-MVD. Although non-randomised trials suggest no additional survival-, MI-, and CVE- benefit from CABG over PCI-DES, these results should be interpreted with care.