Clinical cardiology · 2014
Outcomes associated with fractional flow-guided revascularization: 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.
Bavry Anthony A, Elgendy Islam Y, Petersen John W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Deferral of revascularization for abnormal but nonischemic lesions is usually recommended; however, the long-term outcome of this approach is not well known.
HYPOTHESIS: Deferral of nonischemic lesions will be associated with a low frequency of adverse events.
METHODS: A PubMed search of the MEDLINE database identified studies that reported clinical outcomes among patients who had fractional flow reserve-guided revascularization. We further categorized studies into 2 subgroups: left main and non-left main coronary artery lesions. Baseline demographics and clinical outcome data were extracted by 3 independent reviewers. Fixed and random effects summary risk ratios were constructed using Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian-Laird models, respectively. The primary outcome was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization.
RESULTS: From 741 potential studies, 17 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 2975 participants), 8 in the left main subgroup (n = 595) and 9 studies (n = 2380) in non-left main subgroup. In the left main subgroup, the incidence of the composite outcome was 15.3% in the no-ischemia/deferral group vs 14.3% in the ischemia/revascularization group (risk ratio [RR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.68, P = 0.54, I(2) = 3.7%). In the non-left main subgroup, the incidence of the composite outcome was 9.2% in the no-ischemia/deferral group vs 18.8% in the ischemia/revascularization group (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.34-0.52, P < 0.0001, I(2) = 20.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with left main coronary disease had a relatively high incidence of adverse cardiovascular events, which was similar in both the deferral and revascularization groups. In patients with non-left main disease, ischemia was associated with worse outcomes despite revascularization.
HYPOTHESIS: Deferral of nonischemic lesions will be associated with a low frequency of adverse events.
METHODS: A PubMed search of the MEDLINE database identified studies that reported clinical outcomes among patients who had fractional flow reserve-guided revascularization. We further categorized studies into 2 subgroups: left main and non-left main coronary artery lesions. Baseline demographics and clinical outcome data were extracted by 3 independent reviewers. Fixed and random effects summary risk ratios were constructed using Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian-Laird models, respectively. The primary outcome was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization.
RESULTS: From 741 potential studies, 17 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 2975 participants), 8 in the left main subgroup (n = 595) and 9 studies (n = 2380) in non-left main subgroup. In the left main subgroup, the incidence of the composite outcome was 15.3% in the no-ischemia/deferral group vs 14.3% in the ischemia/revascularization group (risk ratio [RR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.68, P = 0.54, I(2) = 3.7%). In the non-left main subgroup, the incidence of the composite outcome was 9.2% in the no-ischemia/deferral group vs 18.8% in the ischemia/revascularization group (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.34-0.52, P < 0.0001, I(2) = 20.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with left main coronary disease had a relatively high incidence of adverse cardiovascular events, which was similar in both the deferral and revascularization groups. In patients with non-left main disease, ischemia was associated with worse outcomes despite revascularization.