冠状动脉内应用阿昔单抗对ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者疗效和安全性的Meta分析

目的:比较冠状动脉内(IC)应用阿昔单抗与静脉应用(IV)阿昔单抗治疗ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)的疗效和安全性。方法:计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、中国生物医学文献数据库、CNKI全文数据库,收集1993年1月至2014年6月公开发表的有关IC阿昔单抗和IV阿昔单抗疗效比较的随机对照试验(RCTs),手检可获的参考文献、会议摘要及相关网站资料。对符合要求的RCTs进行资料提取,并采用RevMan5.0软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入7项RCTs,Meta分析显示:IC阿昔单抗组再发心肌梗死发生率显著低于IV阿昔单抗组(OR=0.61,95%CI:0.40~0.92,P=0.02);IC阿昔单抗组与IV阿昔单抗组之间全因死亡率(OR=0.85,95%CI:0.59~1.23,P=0.39)、靶血管再血管化率(OR=0.66,95%CI:0.40~1.09,P=0.10)、大出血发生率(OR=1.00,95%CI:0.68~1.47,P=0.99)均无显著差异。结论:冠脉内应用阿昔单抗能更显著降低ST抬高型心肌梗死患者再发心肌梗死发生率,初步显示了冠脉内应用阿昔单抗疗效的优越性。     

完全血运重建对合并多支血管病变的急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者预后影响的Meta分析

目的系统评价完全血运重建与仅罪犯血管介入治疗合并多支血管病变的急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者的临床疗效。方法计算机检索PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、CBM、CNKI、万方数据库,纳入有关完全血运重建和仅罪犯血管介入治疗合并多支血管病变的急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死预后比较的随机对照研究。由两名评价员按照纳入与排除标准筛选文献,提取资料和评价质量后,采用Cochrane协作网提供的RevMan5.3统计软件进行Meta分析。结果最终纳入11篇随机对照研究,共计3697例患者,其中完全血运重建组1675例,仅罪犯血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)组2022例。Meta分析结果显示,与仅罪犯血管PCI组相比,完全血运重建组在主要心血管事件(MACE)发生率(RR=0.53,95%CI:0.42～0.69,P0.001)、心血管死亡率(RR=0.46,95%CI:0.30～0.71,P0.001)、全因死亡率(RR=0.68,95%CI:0.50～0.92,P=0.01)、再次血运重建(RR=0.38,95%CI:0.31～0.47,P0.001)发生率显著降低,差异有统计学意义;但两组再发急性心肌梗死率无统计学差异(RR=0.74,95%CI:0.54～1.01,P=0.06)。结论在合并多支血管病变的急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者的介入治疗中,与仅罪犯血管介入治疗相比,完全血运重建治疗策略是安全有效的,可降低患者的MACE发生率、心血管死亡率、全因死亡率及再次血运重建,改善预后。     

AHA2011五大抗凝研究结果发布

AIDASTEMI研究发现,对于ST段抬高急性心肌梗死（STEMI）患者,与阿昔单抗静脉给药相比,一次性（Bolus）冠状动脉内给药并无额外获益。经冠状动脉给药方法安全,或可减少心力衰竭发生率。该研究于2008～2011年间,纳入2065例STEMI患者,随机分入阿昔单抗静脉给药与一次性（Bolus）冠状动脉内给药组。研究主要终点为90d内全因死亡、再发心肌梗死、新发充血性心力衰竭。结果显示,     

血管内超声与冠状动脉造影指导的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗急性心肌梗死有效性和安全性的Meta分析

目的：系统评价血管内超声（intravascular ultrasound,IVUS）与冠状动脉造影指导的经皮冠状动脉介入（percutaneous coronary intervention,PCI）治疗急性心肌梗死的疗效和安全性。方法：计算机检索PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science、Cochrane图书馆、CBM、CNKI、维普数据库和万方数据库，纳入血管内超声在急性心肌梗死PCI治疗中应用的相关临床研究，采用RevMan5.3统计软件进行Meta分析。结果：最终纳入9篇满足要求的临床研究，共计39 302例患者。Meta分析结果显示：与冠状动脉造影指导的急性心肌梗死PCI治疗相比，IVUS指导PCI的主要心血管不良事件（OR=0.80,95%CI:0.74～0.86,P <0.00001）、心源性死亡（OR=0.64,95%CI:0.48～0.85,P=0.002）、心肌梗死（OR=0.86,95%CI:0.74～0.99,P=0.04）、支架内血栓（OR=0.65,95%CI:0.49～0.88,P=0.005）、靶血管血运重建（OR=0.80,95%...     

VerifyNow P2Y12血小板反应性检测对评估冠状动脉血运重建患者的临床疗效的meta分析

目的 评价VerifyNow P2Y12血小板反应性检测对使用氯吡格雷的冠状动脉血运重建患者的长期临床预后的意义。方法 计算机检索Cochrane图书馆（2014年第3期）、PubMed、EMbase、Highwire、CBM、CNKI等中外生物医学数据库。收集关于对冠状动脉血运重建患者实施VerifyNowP2Y12检测，随访时间为6~12个月的随机对照临床试验以及队列研究，检索日期截止至2014年3月。提取有效数据后采用STATA 12.0软件进行Meta分析。结果 本meta分析纳入14项研究，共计17 643名患者,结果显示:VerifyNow P2Y12检测出的血小板高反应性组的全因病死率高〔RR=1.572,95%CI(1.220,2.025),P=0.000〕，再次心肌梗死发生率高〔RR=1.981,95%CI(1.443,2.720)，P=0.000〕，支架内血栓发生率高〔RR=2.205,95%CI(1.643，2.960)，P=0.000〕，卒中发生率高〔RR=2.288,95%CI(1.195,4.380)，P=0.012〕，而对于靶血管重建,两组结果差异无统计学意义〔RR=1.148,95%CI(0.809,1.629)，P=0.439〕。结论 VerifyNow P2Y12血小板反应性检测对服用氯吡格雷患者的全因死亡、心肌梗死、支架内血栓、卒中等心血管事件有预测价值。     

依维莫司生物可吸收血管支架与药物洗脱金属支架在冠状动脉疾病应用中临床结局比较的meta分析

目的 探讨生物可吸收血管支架（everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold,BVS）和依维莫司药物洗脱金属支架(everolimus-eluting metallic stents,EES)在冠状动脉疾病(coronary artery diseases,CAD)应用中的中长期临床结局的meta分析,为临床决策提供参考依据。方法 系统地检阅了电子数据库以及最新国际心血管会议记录,检索时间截止至2018年1月8日,收集已公布相关临床研究的最新随访数据并采用stata 12.0软件进行统计分析。结果 最终共纳入11项临床研究,包括7项随机对照试验,总计7 321位患者。meta分析结果显示,BVS组较EES组有更高的明确/极可能支架内血栓(stent/scaffold thrombosis,ST)发生率［比值比（OR）=3.08,95%CI:2.04-4.66,P<0.01］,其中早期(OR=2.26, 95%CI:1.26-4.03, P=0.006)及极晚期ST(OR=4.46,95%CI:2.01-9.89,P<0.01)发生率均显著高于EES组。BVS植入患者在靶病变失败(OR=1.34,95%CI:1.11 to 1.60,P<0.01)、靶血管心肌梗死(OR=1.71,95%CI:1.31-2.23,P<0.01)、有临床指征的靶病变血运重建(OR=1.51,95%CI:1.15-2.00,P<0.01)以及总心肌梗死(OR=1.52,95%CI:1.22-1.90,P<0.01)的发生率上均较EES组增多。然而,两组在面向患者的复合终点、心因死亡、全因死亡以及全血运重建等发生率上并无显著性差异。结论 BVS在冠状动脉疾病应用中的中长期临床结局劣于EES,但仍需更多大型长期临床随机对照试验进一步论证。     

PCI术后造影随访和常规随访对患者预后影响的Meta分析

目的系统评价经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后造影随访和常规随访对患者预后的影响。方法计算机检索PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Library和EMbase数据库,同时手工检索纳入研究的参考文献,检索时间均为建库至2019年7月1日,搜集有关PCI术后造影随访(AF)和常规随访(CF)对患者预后影响的随机对照研究。由2位评价员按纳入与排除标准独立筛选文献、提取数据并按照Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具进行纳入研究的质量评价后,采用RevMan5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入随机对照试验6篇,患者7065例,其中AF组3492例,CF组4113例。Meta分析结果显示,与CF组相比,AF组患者总的再次血运重建率(RR=1.62,95%CI:1.32～2.00,P0.00001)升高,靶血管血运重建(TVR)(RR=1.68,95%CI:1.18～2.38,P=0.004)和靶病变血运重建(TLR)(RR=1.64,95%CI:1.39～1.95,P0.00001)发生率均明显升高;全因死亡率(RR=0.66,95%CI:0.50～0.87,P=0.004)下降;心肌梗死(MI)率(RR=0.80,95%CI:0.52～1.23,P=0.31)两组间无明显差异。结论冠状动脉(冠脉)造影作为PCI的随访手段之一,增加再次血运重建的机率,可能减少患者远期的全因死亡率和心肌梗死率。对高缺血风险患者的价值还需大样本完全随机方法的研究结果支持。     

生物可吸收支架与药物洗脱支架在急性心肌梗死治疗中的安全性和有效性Meta分析

目的系统评价生物可吸收支架(BVS)与药物洗脱支架(DES)在治疗急性心肌梗死(AMI)中的安全性和有效性。方法计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase、Web of Science及相关网站(www.clinicaltrials.gov)。纳入2006年1月至2020年1月关于BVS与DES治疗AMI安全性与有效性的研究。主要有效终点为靶病变血运重建,主要安全终点为明确/可能的支架内血栓形成。由两名研究者按照纳入与排除标准筛选文献,提取资料和评价文献质量。采用Stata 12.0统计软件进行Meta分析。结果最终纳入4个临床研究,其中2个为随机对照研究,2个为观察性研究,共1335例患者,其中BVS组709例,DES组626例。随访时间为12~36个月。Meta分析结果:BVS组与DES组靶病变血运重建(RR 1.59,95%CI 0.82~3.10,P=0.337)、明确/可能的支架内血栓形成(RR 1.56,95%CI 0.70~3.46,P=0.685)的差异均无统计学意义。两组靶血管心肌梗死(RR 1.05,95%CI 0.41~2.67,P=0.667)、全因死亡(RR 1.35,95%CI 0.52~3.45,P=0.871)、心原性死亡(RR 1.29,95%CI 0.59~2.80,P=0.778)、设备相关的复合终点(RR 1.37,95%CI 0.87~2.16,P=0.425)的差异均无统计学意义。结论BVS治疗AMI的安全性与有效性可能不劣于DES。     

生物可吸收支架与依维莫斯洗脱支架在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中的安全性和有效性Meta分析

目的:系统评价生物可吸收支架(BVS)与依维莫司洗脱支架(EES)在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中的安全性和有效性。方法:计算机检索Pub Med、MEDILINE、EMBASE、Cochrane library、知网、万方等数据库,检索时限从建库到2017-10。同时查阅会议摘要和相关网站,收集已公布随访数据的有关随机对照试验。根据改良Jadad量表评价文献质量并提取资料,运用Review Manager 5.3软件进行Meta分析。主要的有效性终点和安全性终点为靶病变失败和支架内血栓形成。结果:共纳入9篇随机对照研究,共包含6 721例患者,其中BVS组3 670例,EES组3 051例。随访时间为6~36个月。Meta分析结果:BVS组靶病变失败(RR=1.31,95%CI:1.08~1.58,P=0.005)、支架内血栓形成(RR=2.89,CI:1.85~4.53,P0.0001)、缺血驱动靶病变血运重建(RR=1.44,95%CI:1.12~1.86,P=0.005)、靶血管心肌梗死(RR=1.74,95%CI:1.33~2.27,P0.0001)及所有心肌梗死(RR=1.49,95%CI:1.16~1.91,P=0.002)均高于EES组;全因死亡(RR=0.87,95%CI:0.57~1.33,P=0.520),心原性死亡(RR=0.78,95%CI:0.54~1.11,P=0.160)及患者相关的复合终点(RR=1.10,95%CI:0.95~1.27,P=0.210),两组差异均无统计学意义。结论:在PCI中BVS与EES相比安全性和有效性较低。BVS的安全性和有效性仍然需要更长时间的、大量的临床研究来论证。     

不同时间窗干预非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征疗效观察

目的 比较非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征患者早期干预和延迟干预的有效性和安全性.方法 本试验为多中心随机研究,将入选的非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征患者分配至早期组(24 h内接受冠状动脉造影)和延迟组(36 h后接受冠状动脉造影),接受介入治疗或冠状动脉旁路移植术.主要终点是180 d随访时死亡、心肌梗死、卒中的复合终点,次要终点是180 d随访时死亡、心肌梗死、难治性缺血、卒中、再次血运重建.结果 共有815例患者入选,主要终点事件发生率早期组为9.0%,延迟组为14.6%(P=0.01).次要终点事件(180 d死亡、心肌梗死或难治性缺血复合终点)的发生率早期组为14.6%,延迟组为22.0%(P=0.01).180 d心肌梗死发生率延迟组高于早期组(10.8%比5.2%,P=0.00).另一个次要终点事件(180 d死亡、心肌梗死、难治性缺血、卒中或再次血运重建复合终点)的发生率早期组为26.7%,延迟组为30.4%(P=0.25).结论 早期干预可以减少非ST段抬高型急性冠状动脉综合征患者再发心肌梗死的发生率.     

Clinical efficacy and safety of intracoronary vs. intravenous abciximab administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Adjunctive therapy with abciximab has been proven to reduce mortality and reinfarction in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) referred to invasive management. Standard abciximab regimen consists of an intravenous (IV) bolus followed by a 12-h IV infusion. Experimental studies and small clinical trials suggest the superiority of intracoronary (IC) injection of abciximab over the IV route. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of IC vs. IV abciximab administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). The primary endpoint was mortality, while recurrent myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization (TVR) were selected as secondary endpoints. The safety endpoint was the risk of major bleeding complications. A total of six randomized trials were finally included in the meta-analysis, enrolling a total of 1246 patients. Compared to IV route, IC abciximab was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, OR [95% confidence interval (CI)]?=0.43 [0.20-0.94], p=0.03), and TVR (OR [95% CI]?=0.53 [0.29-0.99], p=0.05). No differences in terms of recurrent myocardial infarction (OR [95% CI]?=0.54 [0.23-1.28], p=0.17) or major bleeding complications (OR [95% CI]?=0.91 [0.46-1.79], p=0.79) were observed between the two strategies. The present meta-analysis showed that IC administration of abciximab is associated with significant benefits in mortality at short-term follow-up compared to IV abciximab administration, without any excess of major bleeding in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI. However, further trials are warranted to establish the optimal strategy of abciximab treatment in this setting.     

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome

It is unclear whether intracoronary (IC) bolus administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndromes is superior to intravenous (IV) administration. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effects of IC and IV administrations of GPIs in patients with acute coronary syndromes. We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for RCTs comparing IC to IV administration of GPIs (abciximab, eptifibatide, tirofiban) during PCI. Data were pooled and stratified into short (1 month to 3 months) and mid-/long-term (≥6 months) follow-up durations. Ten RCTs involving 1,590 patients met our inclusion criteria. Compared to the IV group the IC group was more likely to have complete perfusion (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade 3 flow) after PCI (risk ratio [RR] 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02 to 1.15). IC administration was associated with similar bleeding rates as IV (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.24) but with a significant decrease in short-term target vessel revascularization (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96). IC administration was also associated with a significant decrease in short-term mortality (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.90) but this decrease was no longer significant in mid-/long-term RCTs. In conclusion, compared to IV administration IC administration of GPIs has favorable effects on Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow, target vessel revascularization, and short-term mortality after PCI, with no difference in rates of bleeding. Data regarding mid-/long-term outcomes were limited and inconclusive. Large RCTs with longer follow-up are required to determine long-term safety and efficacy.     

Benefits from intracoronary as compared to intravenous abciximab administration for STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty: a meta-analysis of 8 randomized trials

BackgroundAdjunctive abciximab administration has been demonstrated to reduce mortality and reinfarction in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) referred to invasive management. Standard abciximab regimen consists of an intravenous (IV) bolus followed by a 12-h IV infusion. Experimental studies and small clinical trials suggest the superiority of intracoronary (IC) injection of abciximab over IV route. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials (RCTs) to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of IC vs IV abciximab administration in STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty.MethodsWe obtained results from all RCTs enrolling STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The primary endpoint was mortality, while recurrent myocardial infarction, postprocedural epicardial (TIMI 3) and myocardial (MBG 2–3) perfusion were identified as secondary endpoints. The safety endpoint was the risk of major bleeding complications.ResultsA total of 8 randomized trials were finally included in the meta-analysis, enrolling a total of 3259 patients. As compared to IV route, IC abciximab was associated with a significant improvement in myocardial perfusion (OR [95% CI] = 1.76 [1.28–2.42], p < 0.001), without significant benefits in terms of mortality (OR [95% CI] = 0.85 [0.59–1.23], p = 0.39), reinfarction (OR [95% CI] = 0.79 [0.46–1.33], p = 0.37), or major bleeding complications (OR [95% CI] = 1.19 [0.76–1.87], p = 0.44). However, we observed a significant relationship between patient's risk profile and mortality benefits from IC abciximab administration (p = 0.011).ConclusionsThe present updated meta-analysis showed that IC administration of abciximab is associated with significant benefits in myocardial perfusion, but not in clinical outcome at short-term follow-up as compared to IV abciximab administration, without any excess of major bleedings in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. However, a significant relationship was observed between patient's risk profile and mortality benefits from IC abciximab administration. Therefore, waiting for long-term follow-up results and additional randomized trials, IC abciximab administration cannot be routinely recommended, but may be considered in high-risk patients.     

Intracoronary compared to intravenous bolus abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) patients reduces 30-day mortality and target vessel revascularization: a randomized trial

Background: Abciximab is beneficial in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). However, the optimal administration route of the initial bolus of abciximab, that is, intravenous (IV) versus intracoronary (IC), has been questioned. Preliminary studies suggest that IC‐bolus is superior, probably due to high local concentration. In this study, we assess the short‐term efficacy and safety of IC compared to IV bolus of abciximab in patients with STEMI during pPCI. Methods: In 2006–2008, we randomized 355 STEMI patients who underwent pPCI and had indication for abciximab to either IV or IC bolus followed by a 12‐hour IV infusion. Primary end‐points at 30 days were target vessel revascularization (TVR), recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) or death, and the composite of the three. Secondary end‐points were bleeding complications. Results: The two groups (IV n = 170;IC n = 185) were similar with respect to baseline characteristics. Mortality at 30 days was 5.3% in the IV group compared to only 1.1% in the IC group (P = 0.02). TVR was performed in 9.4% in the IV group compared to 3.8% in the IC group (P = 0.03). No significant difference in MI rates was seen (IV 4.7% vs. IC 2.7%; P = 0.32). We found a significant reduction in the composite end‐point (IV 19.4% vs. IC 7.6%; P = 0.001) in favor of IC use. Major bleeding complications were similar (IV 2.4% vs. IC 1.6%; P = 0.62). Neither difference was observed in minor bleedings (IV 14.1% vs. IC 9.7%; P = 0.20). Conclusion: IC administration of bolus abciximab in STEMI patients undergoing pPCI reduces 30‐day mortality and TVR and tends to reduce MI, compared to IV‐bolus. (J Interven Cardiol 2011;24:105–111)     

One-year clinical outcomes with abciximab vs. placebo in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention after pre-treatment with clopidogrel: results of the ISAR-REACT 2 randomized trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to investigate whether the benefit of abciximab in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after pre-treatment with 600 mg clopidogrel is sustained at 1 year. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed 1-year follow-up of 2022 high-risk patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing urgent PCI, who were randomized to abciximab or placebo after pre-treatment with 600 mg clopidogrel in the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 2 trial. The combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 1 year was the primary outcome analysis. At 1 year, the primary outcome was reached in 23.3% of patients allocated to abciximab vs. 28.0% of patients allocated to placebo [relative risk (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.95, P = 0.012]. The combined incidence of death or myocardial infarction was 11.6% in patients allocated to abciximab vs. 15.3% in patients allocated to placebo (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.94, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing a PCI after pre-treatment with 600 mg clopidogrel, adverse events occurred less frequently with abciximab and the early benefit was maintained at 1 year after administration.     

Culprit Vessel Only vs Immediate Complete Revascularization in Patients With Acute ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Although multivessel coronary artery disease has been associated with poor health outcomes in patients with acute ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the optimal approach to revascularization remains uncertain. The objective of this review was to determine the benefits and harms of culprit vessel only vs immediate complete percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute STEMI. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Teams of 2 reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts, completed full‐text reviews, and abstracted data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random‐effect models for nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, cardiovascular mortality, all‐cause mortality, and adverse events, and used the GRADE approach to rate confidence in estimates of effect. Of 341 patients randomized to complete revascularization and followed to study conclusion, 31 experienced revascularization, as did 80 of 324 randomized to culprit vessel only revascularization (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.24‐0.53). Ten patients in the complete revascularization group and 28 patients in the culprit vessel only revascularization group experienced nonfatal MI (RR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17‐0.72). All‐cause mortality and cardiac deaths did not differ between groups (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.40‐1.21 for all‐cause mortality; RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.22‐1.04 for cardiac deaths). Pooled data from 3 RCTs suggest that immediate complete revascularization probably reduces revascularization in patients with acute STEMI; although results suggest possible benefits on MI and death, confidence in estimates is low.     

A comparison of intracoronary with intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background : It is still debatable whether intracoronary (IC) administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) is superior to intravenous (IV) administration for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: We performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. A literature search was conducted for relevant trials. Primary end‐points were short‐term (1–3 months) and mid‐/long‐term (6/12 months) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (mortality, reinfarction, target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Secondary end‐points were thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade flow, TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) flow, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) within 2 weeks, and bleeding complication. Results: Twelve studies were included in the meta‐analysis. IC administration of GPIs did not decrease short‐term mortality (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.41–1.23, P = 0.22) and reinfarction rate (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.45–1.29, P = 0.31) compared with IV administration. There was a trend toward reduction of short‐term TVR rate in IC group compared with IV group but not reaching statistical significance (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.31–1.04, P = 0.07). IC administration of GPIs significantly increased TIMI grade 3 flow (OR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.06–2.06, P = 0.02) and TMPG grade 2–3 flow (OR: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.53–4.51, P = 0.0004) compared with IV administration. No significant difference was observed in long‐term MACEs rate, LVEF, and bleeding complication between the 2 groups. Conclusion: IC administration of GPIs in patients with ACS undergoing PCI can significantly increase target coronary flow and myocardial reperfusion without increasing the risk of bleeding complication, but cannot improve clinical outcome compared with IV administration. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:223–234)     

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

ObjectivesThe goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of contemporary randomized trials addressing the efficacy and safety of multivessel versus culprit vessel–only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease.BackgroundMultivessel coronary artery disease is present in about one-half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel and culprit vessel–only PCI produced conflicting results regarding the benefits of a multivessel PCI strategy.MethodsA comprehensive search for published randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel PCI with culprit vessel–only PCI was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO Services, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and scientific conference sessions from inception to September 15, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Primary efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality and reinfarction.ResultsTen randomized controlled trials were included, representing 7,030 patients: 3,426 underwent multivessel PCI and 3,604 received culprit vessel–only PCI. Compared with culprit vessel–only PCI, multivessel PCI was associated with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.05) and lower risk for reinfarction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.95), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.00), and repeat revascularization (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.44). Major bleeding (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.67), stroke (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.65 to 2.01), and contrast-induced nephropathy (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.95) were not significantly different between the 2 groups.ConclusionsMultivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk for reinfarction, without any difference in all-cause mortality, compared with culprit vessel–only PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.     

One year outcomes with abciximab vs. placebo during percutaneous coronary intervention after pre-treatment with clopidogrel.

AIMS: In the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen-Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment Trial, the use of abciximab in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after pretreatment with 600 mg clopidogrel for >2 h was associated with no clinically measurable benefit at 30 days. We assessed whether there was any clinical benefit from abciximab at 1 year follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: After pre-treatment with 600 mg clopidogrel, a total of 2159 patients undergoing PCI for stable or unstable angina without marked ST-segment shifts or positive biomarkers were randomly assigned to receive abciximab or placebo. The occurrence of the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization was assessed at 1 year after randomization. At 1 year, the composite endpoint occurred in 23.8% of the patients in each group [relative risk (RR), 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85-1.20; P=0.92]. The combined incidence of death and myocardial infarction was 6.0% in the abciximab group and 6.4% in the placebo group (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.67-1.32; P=0.73). The mortality rate was 2.1% in the abciximab group and 2.4% in the placebo group (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.50-1.54; P=0.66). No trend towards clinical benefit was observed with abciximab at 1 year in any subgroup analysed. CONCLUSION: In patients with a low-to-intermediate risk profile undergoing PCI after pre-treatment with a 600 mg clopidogrel for at least 2 h, the use of abciximab offers no additional clinical benefit at 1 year.     

Safety and Efficacy of Ultra Short-duration Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is required after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to reduce stent thrombosis, but DAPT increases bleeding risks. The optimal duration of DAPT that provides the maximum protective ischemic effect along with the minimum bleeding risk is unclear. This is the first meta-analysis comparing outcomes for 1-month versus longer DAPT strategies following PCI.We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (from inception to October 2021) for randomized controlled trials that compared 1-month duration vs > 1-month duration of DAPT following PCI. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The co-primary outcomes for study selection were all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and stent thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular mortality, ischemic stroke and target vessel revascularization. A total of five randomized controlled trials were included [n = 29,355; 1-month DAPT(n = 14,662) vs > 1-month DAPT (n = 14,693)]. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of all-cause mortality (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78-1.03; P = 0.12) and stent thrombosis (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.80-1.43; P = 0.65). Similarly, there were no significant differences in MI, cardiovascular mortality, ischemic stroke, and target vessel revascularization. The rate of major bleeding was significantly lower in the group treated with DAPT for 1-month (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.99, P = 0.04).There is no difference in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, stent thrombosis, ischemic stroke, and target vessel revascularization with 1-month of DAPT following PCI with contemporary drug eluting stents compared to longer DAPT duration.