Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in Older Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Individual Patient Meta-Analysis.

IF 5.2 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENERGY & FUELS
Energy & Fuels Pub Date : 2024-11-05 Epub Date: 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.071493
Gianluca Campo, Felix Böhm, Thomas Engstrøm, Pieter C Smits, Islam Y Elgendy, Gerry P McCann, David A Wood, Matteo Serenelli, Stefan James, Dan Eik Høfsten, Bianca M Boxm-de Klerk, Adrian Banning, John A Cairns, Rita Pavasini, Goran Stankovic, Petr Kala, Henning Kelbæk, Emanuele Barbato, Ilija Srdanovic, Mohamed Hamza, Amerjeet S Banning, Simone Biscaglia, Shamir Mehta
{"title":"Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in Older Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Individual Patient Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Gianluca Campo, Felix Böhm, Thomas Engstrøm, Pieter C Smits, Islam Y Elgendy, Gerry P McCann, David A Wood, Matteo Serenelli, Stefan James, Dan Eik Høfsten, Bianca M Boxm-de Klerk, Adrian Banning, John A Cairns, Rita Pavasini, Goran Stankovic, Petr Kala, Henning Kelbæk, Emanuele Barbato, Ilija Srdanovic, Mohamed Hamza, Amerjeet S Banning, Simone Biscaglia, Shamir Mehta","doi":"10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.071493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Complete revascularization is the standard treatment for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The FIRE trial (Functional Assessment in Elderly Myocardial Infarction Patients With Multivessel Disease) confirmed the benefit of complete revascularization in a population of older patients, but the follow-up is limited to 1 year. Therefore, the long-term benefit (>1 year) of this strategy in older patients is debated. To address this, an individual patient data meta-analysis was conducted in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction ≥75 years of age enrolled in randomized clinical trials investigating complete versus culprit-only revascularization strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database were systematically searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing complete versus culprit-only revascularization. Individual patient-level data were collected from the relevant trials. The primary end point was death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. The secondary end point was cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 7 randomized clinical trials encompassing 1733 patients (917 randomized to culprit-only and 816 to complete revascularization) were analyzed. The median age was 79 [interquartile range, 77-83] years. Of the patients, 595 (34%) were female. Follow-up ranged from a minimum of 6 months to a maximum of 6.2 years (median, 2.5 [interquartile range, 1-3.8] years). Complete revascularization reduced the primary end point up to 4 years (hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) but not at the longest available follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-1.01]). Complete revascularization significantly reduced the occurrence of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction at the longest available follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.58-0.99]). This was observed even when censoring the follow-up at each year. Long-term rate of death did not differ between complete and culprit-only revascularization arms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this individual patient data meta-analysis of older patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, complete revascularization reduced the primary end point of death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization up to 4 years. At the longest follow-up, complete revascularization reduced the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction but not the primary end point.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42022367898.</p>","PeriodicalId":35,"journal":{"name":"Energy & Fuels","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy & Fuels","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.071493","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Complete revascularization is the standard treatment for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The FIRE trial (Functional Assessment in Elderly Myocardial Infarction Patients With Multivessel Disease) confirmed the benefit of complete revascularization in a population of older patients, but the follow-up is limited to 1 year. Therefore, the long-term benefit (>1 year) of this strategy in older patients is debated. To address this, an individual patient data meta-analysis was conducted in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction ≥75 years of age enrolled in randomized clinical trials investigating complete versus culprit-only revascularization strategies.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database were systematically searched to identify randomized clinical trials comparing complete versus culprit-only revascularization. Individual patient-level data were collected from the relevant trials. The primary end point was death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. The secondary end point was cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction.

Results: Data from 7 randomized clinical trials encompassing 1733 patients (917 randomized to culprit-only and 816 to complete revascularization) were analyzed. The median age was 79 [interquartile range, 77-83] years. Of the patients, 595 (34%) were female. Follow-up ranged from a minimum of 6 months to a maximum of 6.2 years (median, 2.5 [interquartile range, 1-3.8] years). Complete revascularization reduced the primary end point up to 4 years (hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) but not at the longest available follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-1.01]). Complete revascularization significantly reduced the occurrence of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction at the longest available follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.58-0.99]). This was observed even when censoring the follow-up at each year. Long-term rate of death did not differ between complete and culprit-only revascularization arms.

Conclusions: In this individual patient data meta-analysis of older patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, complete revascularization reduced the primary end point of death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization up to 4 years. At the longest follow-up, complete revascularization reduced the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction but not the primary end point.

Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42022367898.

老年 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者的完全血管再通与仅对病因进行血管再通:个体患者 Meta 分析。
背景:完全血运重建是ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)和多血管疾病患者的标准治疗方法。多支血管疾病老年心肌梗死患者的功能评估(FIRE)试验证实了完全血运重建对老年患者的益处,但随访时间仅限于 1 年。因此,这一策略在老年患者中的长期获益(> 1 年)还存在争议。为了解决这个问题,我们对参加随机临床试验的 75 岁或以上 STEMI 患者的个体数据进行了荟萃分析,这些试验研究了完全血运重建策略与单纯罪魁祸首血运重建策略。方法:对 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库进行了系统检索,以确定比较完全血管再通与单纯元凶血管再通的随机临床试验。从相关试验中收集了患者的个人数据。主要终点是死亡、心肌梗死(MI)或缺血导致的血管再通。次要终点是心血管死亡或心肌梗死。结果:分析了来自七项研究性临床试验的数据,其中包括 1733 名患者(917 名患者随机接受了单纯罪魁祸首治疗,816 名患者接受了完全血运重建治疗)。中位年龄为 79 [77-83] 岁。女性患者为 595 人(34%)。随访时间最短 6 个月,最长 6.2 年(中位数为 2.5 [1-3.8] 年)。完全血运重建降低了主要终点的发生率,最长达四年(HR 0.78,95%CI 0.63-0.96),但在最长的随访时间内(HR 0.83,95%CI 0.69-1.01)并没有降低。在最长的随访时间内,完全血运重建大大降低了心血管死亡或心肌梗死的发生率(HR 0.76,95%CI 0.58-0.99)。即使对每年的随访情况进行普查,也能观察到这一点。完全血运重建治疗组和仅进行罪魁祸首血运重建治疗组的长期死亡率没有差异。结论:在这项针对患有多支血管疾病的老年 STEMI 患者的个体数据荟萃分析中,完全血运重建减少了死亡、心肌梗死或缺血性血运重建的主要终点,最长达 4 年。在最长的随访期内,完全血运重建降低了心血管死亡或心肌梗死的复合终点,但没有降低主要终点。临床研究注册:ProCORDO CRD42022367898。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Energy & Fuels
Energy & Fuels 工程技术-工程:化工
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
13.20%
发文量
1101
审稿时长
2.1 months
期刊介绍: Energy & Fuels publishes reports of research in the technical area defined by the intersection of the disciplines of chemistry and chemical engineering and the application domain of non-nuclear energy and fuels. This includes research directed at the formation of, exploration for, and production of fossil fuels and biomass; the properties and structure or molecular composition of both raw fuels and refined products; the chemistry involved in the processing and utilization of fuels; fuel cells and their applications; and the analytical and instrumental techniques used in investigations of the foregoing areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信