Juan P de Oliveira, Franciani R da Rocha, Ramon Huntermann, Raissa P de Oliveira, Caroline O Fischer Bacca
{"title":"Routine stress testing in diabetic patients after coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Juan P de Oliveira, Franciani R da Rocha, Ramon Huntermann, Raissa P de Oliveira, Caroline O Fischer Bacca","doi":"10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2024.102972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stress testing is a widely used non-invasive tool in patients with angina, but its role in diabetic patients after coronary intervention remains uncertain. This review evaluates its impact in this population.</p><p><strong>Goals: </strong>We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing death, MACE, ischemia and repeated revascularization in diabetic patients post-coronary intervention.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for RCTs and cohort studies on diabetic patients post-revascularization reporting MI and cardiovascular death, ischemia, repeat revascularization, and pooled hazard ratios for mortality or MI. Statistical analysis used RStudio and RevMan, with heterogeneity assessed via I² statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 14,461 patients from 15 studies (14 observational cohorts, 1 RCT), all with diabetes and prior revascularization. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 5.2 years, with a mean age of 60.8±9.5 years, and 75% male. MI and cardiovascular death occurred in 11.24% (95% CI: 7.35-15.79%; p<0.01, Figure 2), ischemia in 36.07% (95% CI: 30.26-42.08%; p<0.01, Figure 3), and repeated revascularization in 15.65% (95% CI: 6.65-27.64%; p<0.01, Figure 4). For mortality or MI, the pooled hazard ratio was 1.28 (95% CI: 1.02-1.61, Figure 5), suggesting a modest benefit of standard care over routine stress testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Routine stress testing in diabetic patients after coronary intervention may not significantly impact outcomes. Further controlled studies are needed to clarify its clinical benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":51006,"journal":{"name":"Current Problems in Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":"102972"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Problems in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2024.102972","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Stress testing is a widely used non-invasive tool in patients with angina, but its role in diabetic patients after coronary intervention remains uncertain. This review evaluates its impact in this population.
Goals: We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing death, MACE, ischemia and repeated revascularization in diabetic patients post-coronary intervention.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for RCTs and cohort studies on diabetic patients post-revascularization reporting MI and cardiovascular death, ischemia, repeat revascularization, and pooled hazard ratios for mortality or MI. Statistical analysis used RStudio and RevMan, with heterogeneity assessed via I² statistics.
Results: We included 14,461 patients from 15 studies (14 observational cohorts, 1 RCT), all with diabetes and prior revascularization. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 5.2 years, with a mean age of 60.8±9.5 years, and 75% male. MI and cardiovascular death occurred in 11.24% (95% CI: 7.35-15.79%; p<0.01, Figure 2), ischemia in 36.07% (95% CI: 30.26-42.08%; p<0.01, Figure 3), and repeated revascularization in 15.65% (95% CI: 6.65-27.64%; p<0.01, Figure 4). For mortality or MI, the pooled hazard ratio was 1.28 (95% CI: 1.02-1.61, Figure 5), suggesting a modest benefit of standard care over routine stress testing.
Conclusion: Routine stress testing in diabetic patients after coronary intervention may not significantly impact outcomes. Further controlled studies are needed to clarify its clinical benefit.
期刊介绍:
Under the editorial leadership of noted cardiologist Dr. Hector O. Ventura, Current Problems in Cardiology provides focused, comprehensive coverage of important clinical topics in cardiology. Each monthly issues, addresses a selected clinical problem or condition, including pathophysiology, invasive and noninvasive diagnosis, drug therapy, surgical management, and rehabilitation; or explores the clinical applications of a diagnostic modality or a particular category of drugs. Critical commentary from the distinguished editorial board accompanies each monograph, providing readers with additional insights. An extensive bibliography in each issue saves hours of library research.