545 Safety and Efficacy of Dual Versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients on Clinically Approved Doses of Chronic Anticoagulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

ObjectiveSeveral studies evaluating the preventive effect of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) on contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) among patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) have suggested inconsistent results and that a systematic review and meta-analysis should be performed.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central databases were searched from inception to 15 November 2019.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials assessing use of NAC compared with non-use of NAC (eg, placebo) in preventing CA-AKI in patients with STEMI following PPCI were included.Data synthesisRelative risks with 95% CIs were pooled using a random-effects model. Evidence level of conclusions was assessed by Cochrane GRADE measure.ResultsSeven trials including 1710 patients were identified. Compared with non-use of NAC, use of NAC significantly reduced the incidence of CA-AKI by 49% (risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.82, p<0.01) and all-cause in-hospital mortality by 63% (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.79, p=0.01). The estimated effects on the requirement for dialysis (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.38, p=0.24) were not statistically significant. Trial sequential analysis conﬁrmed the true positive of NAC in reducing risk of CA-AKI. Subgroup analyses suggested that the administration of NAC had greater benefits in patients with renal dysfunction and in those receiving oral administration and higher dosage of NAC.ConclusionsNAC intake reduces the risk of CA-AKI and all-cause in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. The estimated potential benefit of NAC in preventing dialysis was ambiguous, and further high-quality studies are needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020155265.

Download Full-text

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials testing the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 ( COVID ‐19): Evidence‐base for practise and implications for research

Transfusion Medicine ◽

10.1111/tme.12803 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Tejpal Gupta ◽

Sadhana Kannan ◽

Babusha Kalra ◽

Prafulla Thakkar

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Randomised Controlled

Download Full-text

14 Antithrombotic therapy with or without aspirin after percutaneous coronary intervention or acute coronary syndrome in patients taking oral anticoagulation: a meta-analysis and network analysis of randomised controlled trials

10.1136/heartjnl-2020-ics.14 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

R Colleran ◽

RA Byrne ◽

H Rai ◽

A Kastrati ◽

S Cassese

Keyword(s):

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽

Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽

Network Analysis ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Coronary Intervention ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Coronary Syndrome ◽

Percutaneous Coronary ◽

Randomised Controlled

Download Full-text

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients planned for percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

The Lancet ◽

10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61216-2 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 384 (9943) ◽

pp. 599-606 ◽

Cited By ~ 126

Author(s):

Matthew A Cavender ◽

Marc S Sabatine

Keyword(s):

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Coronary Intervention ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Percutaneous Coronary ◽

Randomised Controlled

Download Full-text

Effect of peer support on patient anxiety during the coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention perioperative period: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031952 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. e031952

Author(s):

Shuo Qin ◽

Yanmei Gu ◽

Tianyu Song

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Coronary Angiography ◽

Peer Support ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Perioperative Period ◽

Coronary Intervention ◽

Patient Anxiety ◽

Percutaneous Coronary ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThe purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of peer support on patient anxiety during the perioperative period of coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods and analysisWe will search the following databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Google Scholar, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals Database, Chinese BioMedical Database and Wanfang Data) from the date of database inception to January 2019. Only randomised controlled trials will be included. For the data analysis, we will use RevMan V.5.3.5 software to evaluate the risk of bias, and the heterogeneity will be investigated using the Q statistic and P index. Additionally, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system will be used to assess the quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval will be required since this is a systematic review of published studies. We aim to report information regarding the effects of peer support on patient anxiety during the perioperative period of coronary angiography or PCI. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019123290.

Download Full-text