Journal of diabetes · 2014
Coronary artery bypass grafting versus drug-eluting stents in patients with severe coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка 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.
Wu Yi-Cheng, Su Ting-Wei, Zhang Jian-Feng, Shen Wei-Feng, Ning Guang, Kong Ye
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the comparative benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with diabetes mellitus and severe coronary artery disease (CAD).
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and ScienceDirect was undertaken. References cited with the papers were also checked to identify relevant articles.
RESULTS: In all, four randomized controlled trials, two prospective registries, and 11 retrospective studies were identified for review. Pooled analysis demonstrated that DES was associated with lower all-cause mortality at Day 30. However, there was no significant difference between CABG and DES in mortality at 12 months and at maximum follow-up. Furthermore, DES was associated with lower overall and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)-free survival, as well as a higher incidence of myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. In contrast, CABG was associated with an increased risk of stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with diabetes mellitus and severe CAD, CABG is superior to DES in that it significantly improves overall and MACCE-free survival and reduces the incidence of myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization in the long term, although it is associated with greater perioperative risk and a higher incidence of stroke. Therefore, CABG should remain the gold standard for these patients.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and ScienceDirect was undertaken. References cited with the papers were also checked to identify relevant articles.
RESULTS: In all, four randomized controlled trials, two prospective registries, and 11 retrospective studies were identified for review. Pooled analysis demonstrated that DES was associated with lower all-cause mortality at Day 30. However, there was no significant difference between CABG and DES in mortality at 12 months and at maximum follow-up. Furthermore, DES was associated with lower overall and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)-free survival, as well as a higher incidence of myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. In contrast, CABG was associated with an increased risk of stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with diabetes mellitus and severe CAD, CABG is superior to DES in that it significantly improves overall and MACCE-free survival and reduces the incidence of myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization in the long term, although it is associated with greater perioperative risk and a higher incidence of stroke. Therefore, CABG should remain the gold standard for these patients.