scholarly journals The Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes of Postdilation after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Yan Li ◽  
Xiying Liang ◽  
Wenjiao Zhang ◽  
Xuan Qiao ◽  
Zhilu Wang
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Stent Thrombosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Target Vessel ◽  
Target Vessel Revascularization ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Objective. The effect of postdilation in patients with acute coronary syndrome is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the clinical and angiographic outcomes of postdilation after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Methods. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wangfang databases were searched from inception to August 30, 2020. Eligible studies from acute coronary syndrome patients treated with postdilation were included. The primary clinical outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), the secondary clinical outcomes comprised all-cause death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, and the angiographic outcomes were no reflow and slow reflow. Results. 11 studies met inclusion criteria. In clinical outcomes, our pooled analysis demonstrated that the postdilation had a tendency of decreasing MACE (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.45–1.00; P  = 0.05) but significantly increased all-cause death (OR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.05–2.12; P  = 0.03). No significant difference existed in stent thrombosis (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.40–1.26; P  = 0.24), myocardial infarction (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 0.51–3.83; P  = 0.51), and target vessel revascularization (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.21–1.80; P  = 0.37) between postdilation and non-postdilation groups. In angiographic outcomes, there were no significant differences in no reflow (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.54–2.65; P  = 0.66) and slow reflow (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.93–1.35; P  = 0.24) between two groups. Conclusions. The postdilation tends to reduce the risk of MACE but significantly increases all-cause death, without significantly affecting stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and coronary TIMI flow grade. However, more randomized controlled trials are required for investigating the effect of postdilation for patients with acute coronary syndrome (registered by PROSPERO, CRD42020160748).

scholarly journals The clinical and angiographic outcomes of post-dilation after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Li ◽  
Xiying Liang ◽  
Wenjiao Zhang ◽  
Xuan Qiao ◽  
Zhilu Wang
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Stent Thrombosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Target Vessel ◽  
Target Vessel Revascularization ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
No Reflow ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Abstract Background Optimal stent deployment is closely related to the prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease, but the effect of post-dilation on clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to analyze the clinical and angiographic outcomes of post-dilation after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Methods PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI and WANGFANG date-bases were searched from inception to August 30, 2020. Eligible studies from acute coronary syndrome patients treated with post-dilation were included. The primary clinical outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), the secondary clinical outcomes were comprised of all-cause death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, the angiographic outcomes were no reflow and slow reflow. Results A total of 11 studies enrolling 5663 patients met inclusion criteria. Our pooled analysis demonstrated that the post-dilation did not have significant impact on MACE (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.50–1.17; P = 0.21), stent thrombosis (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.40–1.26; P = 0.24), myocardial infarction (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.51–3.83; P = 0.51), and target vessel revascularization of clinical outcomes (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.21–1.80; P = 0.37) between post-dilation and non-post-dilation groups, but increased the risk of all-cause death (OR = 1.49, 95% CI 1.05–2.19; P = 0.03). There were no significant difference in no reflow (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.54–2.65; P = 0.66) and slow reflow (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.93–1.35; P = 0.24) of angiographic outcomes between two groups. Conclusions The post-dilation can increase the risk of all-cause death, without affecting the risks of MACE, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, no reflow and slow reflow. However, more randomized controlled trials are required for investigating the benefits of post-dilation for patients with acute coronary syndrome (Registered by PROSPERO, CRD42020160748).

scholarly journals Everolimus-Eluting versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Thrombosis ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashraf Alazzoni ◽  
Ayman Al-Saleh ◽  
Sanjit S. Jolly
Keyword(s):  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Stent Thrombosis ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Target Vessel ◽  
Late Stent Thrombosis ◽  
Very Late Stent Thrombosis ◽  
Target Vessel Revascularization ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Background. Individual randomized trials have suggested that everolimus-eluting stents may have improved clinical outcomes compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents, but individual trials are underpowered to examine outcomes such as mortality and very late stent thrombosis. Methods. Medline, Cochrane, and conference proceedings were searched for randomized trials comparing everolimus versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Results. 6792 patients were included from 4 randomized controlled trials. Stent thrombosis was reduced with everolimus stents versus paclitaxel stents (0.7% versus 2.3%; OR: 0.32; CI: 0.20–0.51; P<0.00001). The reductions in stent thrombosis were observed in (i) early stent thrombosis (within 30 days) (0.2% versus 0.9%; OR: 0.24; P=0.0005), (ii) late (day 31–365) (0.2% versus 0.6%; OR: 0.32; P=0.01), and (iii) very late stent thrombosis (>365 days) (0.2% versus 0.8%; OR: 0.34; P=0.009). The rates of cardiovascular mortality were 1.2% in everolimus group and 1.6% in paclitaxel group (OR: 0.85; P=0.43). Patients receiving everolimus-eluting stents had significantly lower myocardial infarction events and target vessel revascularization as compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents. Interpretation. Everolimus compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents reduced the incidence of early, late, and very late stent thrombosis as well as target vessel revascularization.

Aspirin-omitted dual antithrombotic therapy in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results of a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng-Feng Luo ◽  
Pei Mo ◽  
Guo-Qiang Li ◽  
Shi-Ming Liu
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Stent Thrombosis ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Antithrombotic Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary

Abstract Aims To investigate the effects of aspirin-omitted dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) on myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using PubMed to search for randomized clinical trials comparing DAT with triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) in this setting. Three trials involving 8845 patients were included (4802 and 4043 patients treated with DAT and TAT, respectively). There were no significant differences in all-cause death and stroke between the aspirin-omitted DAT group and TAT group. Otherwise, the incidence of myocardial infarction was significantly higher with aspirin-omitted DAT vs. TAT [odds ratio (OR): 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02–1.63; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%]. Similarly, the incidence of stent thrombosis increased in patients treated with aspirin-omitted DAT vs. TAT (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.02–2.53; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%). The occurrence of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, was significantly lower with aspirin-omitted DAT vs. TAT (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48–0.78; P = 0.02; I2 = 76%). Similar results were found according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding, and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding scales. Conclusion Aspirin-omitted DAT reduces the occurrence of bleeding episodes, with a higher rate of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis in NVAF patients presenting with ACS or undergoing PCI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document