scholarly journals 494 Glycoprotein IIB/IIIA inhibitors may modulate the clinical benefit of radial access as compared to femoral access in primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-regression and a meta-analysis of randomized trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_G) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ernesto Cristiano ◽  
Francesco Cava ◽  
Maria Lo Monaco ◽  
Federica Tempestini ◽  
Francesca Giovannelli ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consistently reported better clinical outcomes with radial as compared to femoral access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Nevertheless, heterogeneous use of potent antiplatelet drugs, such as Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI), across different studies could have biased the results in favour of radial access. We performed an updated meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs in order to appraise whether the use of GPI had an impact on pooled estimates of clinical outcomes according to vascular access. Methods and results We computed pooled estimates by the random effects model for the following outcomes: mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and target vessel revascularization), and major bleedings. Additionally, we performed meta-regression analysis to investigate the impact of GPI use on pooled estimates of clinical outcomes. We analysed 14 randomized controlled trials and 11 090 patients who were treated by radial (5497) and femoral access (5593), respectively. Radial access was associated with better outcomes for mortality [risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), P = 0.03], MACE [risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.02), P = 0.003], and major bleedings [risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.02), P = 0.02]. At meta-regression, we observed a significant correlation of mortality with both GPI use (P = 0.011) and year of publication (P = 0.0073), whereas no correlation was observed with major bleedings. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, the use of radial access for primary PCI was associated with better clinical outcomes as compared to femoral access. However, the effect size on mortality was modulated by GPI rate, with greater benefit of radial access in studies with larger use of these drugs.

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Stefano Rigattieri ◽  
Ernesto Cristiano ◽  
Francesca Giovannelli ◽  
Antonella Tommasino ◽  
Francesco Cava ◽  
...  

Objectives. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consistently reported better clinical outcomes with radial as compared to femoral access for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Nevertheless, heterogeneous use of potent antiplatelet drugs, such as Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI), across different studies could have biased the results in favor of radial access. We performed an updated meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs in order to appraise whether the use of GPI had an impact on pooled estimates of clinical outcomes according to vascular access. Methods. We computed pooled estimates by the random-effects model for the following outcomes: mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and target vessel revascularization), and major bleedings. Additionally, we performed meta-regression analysis to investigate the impact of GPI use on pooled estimates of clinical outcomes. Results. We analyzed 14 randomized controlled trials and 11090 patients who were treated by radial (5497) and femoral access (5593), respectively. Radial access was associated with better outcomes for mortality (risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), p = 0.03 ), MACE (risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.02), p = 0.003 ), and major bleedings (risk difference 0.01 (0.00, 0.02), p = 0.02 ). At meta-regression, we observed a significant correlation of mortality with both GPI use ( p = 0.011 ) and year of publication ( p = 0.0073 ), whereas no correlation was observed with major bleedings. Conclusions. In this meta-analysis, the use of radial access for primary PCI was associated with better clinical outcomes as compared to femoral access. However, the effect size on mortality was modulated by GPI rate, with greater benefit of radial access in studies with larger use of these drugs.


Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 774
Author(s):  
Yanjiao Wang ◽  
Ching-Wen Chien ◽  
Ying Xu ◽  
Tao-Hsin Tung

(1) Background: The effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on left ventricular function in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are important but poorly understood. (2) Purpose: To evaluate the effects of an exercise-based CR program (exercise training alone or combined with psychosocial or educational interventions) compared with usual care on left ventricular function in patients with AMI receiving PCI. (3) Data sources, study selection and data extraction: We searched PubMed, WEB OF SCIENCE, EMBASE, EBSCO, PsycINFO, LILACS and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases (CENTRAL) up to 12th June 2021. Article selected were randomized controlled trials and published as a full-text article. Meta-analysis was conducted with the use of the software Review manager 5.4. (4) Data synthesis: Eight trials were included in the meta-analysis, of which three trials were rated as high risk of bias. A significant improvement was seen in the exercise-based CR group compared with the control group regarding left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (std. mean difference = 1.33; 95% CI:0.43 to 2.23; p = 0.004), left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (std. mean difference = −3.05; 95% CI: −6.00 to −0.09; p = 0.04) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (std. mean difference = −0.40; 95% CI: −0.80 to −0.01; p = 0.04). Although exercise-based CR had no statistical effect in decreasing left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), it showed a favorable trend in relation to both. (5) Conclusions: Exercise-based CR has beneficial effects on LV function and remodeling in AMI patients treated by PCI.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document