Safety and efficacy of routine anticoagulation after primary PCI in STEMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Anika Chowdhury, Dhruvkumar Arvindbhai Vasoya, Mahfuja Jahan Ima, Srija Reddy Koppula, Ashesh Das, Kiran Kumar Dhivakaran, Muhammad Muneeb Khawar, Aadya Mishra, Muhammad Safiullah, Saman Siddique, Deng Siang Lee, Muhammad Hamza, Hemeesh Tandel, Aniket Chatterjee
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of routine anticoagulation after primary PCI in STEMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Anika Chowdhury, Dhruvkumar Arvindbhai Vasoya, Mahfuja Jahan Ima, Srija Reddy Koppula, Ashesh Das, Kiran Kumar Dhivakaran, Muhammad Muneeb Khawar, Aadya Mishra, Muhammad Safiullah, Saman Siddique, Deng Siang Lee, Muhammad Hamza, Hemeesh Tandel, Aniket Chatterjee","doi":"10.1007/s11239-025-03130-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is a widely used minimally invasive procedure that restores blood flow to the coronary artery, improving survival in STEMI patients. Despite its widespread application in clinical settings, the necessity and efficacy of postprocedural anticoagulation (PPAC) remain contentious. Our study aims to assess the outcomes of PPAC in STEMI patients who have undergone PCI. A comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, and Clinicaltrials was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes between PPAC and control (placebo or no PPAC) for STEMI after primary PCI. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.4.1, employing a random-effects model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of Bias Assessment of the articles was assessed using RoB 2.0 software by the Cochrane Collaboration. A total of 5 RCTs comprising 13,586 patients were included, of which 6,829 patients (50.26%) received PPAC. Compared to the non-PPAC group, PPAC did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.84-1.39; P = 0.54, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.83-1.39; P = 0.57, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), and MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events) (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.92-1.37; P = 0.25, I<sup>2</sup> = 22%). Additionally, the odds of stent thrombosis (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.77-1.47; P = 0.69, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and stroke (OR 1.50; 95% CI 0.49-4.57; P = 0.48, I<sup>2</sup> = 58%) did not differ significantly between the groups. However, PPAC was associated with higher odds of bleeding (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.07-2.97; P = 0.03, I<sup>2</sup> = 94%). This meta-analysis reveals no significant differences in the odds of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stent thrombosis, and stroke between PPAC and control following PCI for the management of STEMI. However, PPAC was associated with higher odds of bleeding. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to corroborate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":17546,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-025-03130-1","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

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is a widely used minimally invasive procedure that restores blood flow to the coronary artery, improving survival in STEMI patients. Despite its widespread application in clinical settings, the necessity and efficacy of postprocedural anticoagulation (PPAC) remain contentious. Our study aims to assess the outcomes of PPAC in STEMI patients who have undergone PCI. A comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, and Clinicaltrials was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical outcomes between PPAC and control (placebo or no PPAC) for STEMI after primary PCI. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.4.1, employing a random-effects model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of Bias Assessment of the articles was assessed using RoB 2.0 software by the Cochrane Collaboration. A total of 5 RCTs comprising 13,586 patients were included, of which 6,829 patients (50.26%) received PPAC. Compared to the non-PPAC group, PPAC did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.84-1.39; P = 0.54, I2 = 0%), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.83-1.39; P = 0.57, I2 = 0%), and MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events) (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.92-1.37; P = 0.25, I2 = 22%). Additionally, the odds of stent thrombosis (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.77-1.47; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%) and stroke (OR 1.50; 95% CI 0.49-4.57; P = 0.48, I2 = 58%) did not differ significantly between the groups. However, PPAC was associated with higher odds of bleeding (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.07-2.97; P = 0.03, I2 = 94%). This meta-analysis reveals no significant differences in the odds of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stent thrombosis, and stroke between PPAC and control following PCI for the management of STEMI. However, PPAC was associated with higher odds of bleeding. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to corroborate these findings.

STEMI患者首次PCI后常规抗凝治疗的安全性和有效性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)是一种广泛使用的微创手术,可以恢复冠状动脉的血流量,提高STEMI患者的生存率。尽管在临床应用广泛,但术后抗凝(PPAC)的必要性和有效性仍存在争议。我们的研究旨在评估STEMI患者行PCI后PPAC的疗效。我们对Embase、PubMed和Clinicaltrials进行了全面的检索,以确定随机对照试验(rct),比较原发性PCI后STEMI的PPAC和对照组(安慰剂或无PPAC)的临床结果。采用RevMan 5.4.1版本进行统计分析,采用随机效应模型计算比值比(ORs)及其95%置信区间(ci)。文章的偏倚风险评估采用Cochrane Collaboration的RoB 2.0软件进行。共纳入5项rct,共13586例患者,其中6829例患者(50.26%)接受了PPAC治疗。与非PPAC组相比,PPAC没有显著降低全因死亡率(OR 1.08;95% ci 0.84-1.39;P = 0.54, I2 = 0%),心血管死亡率(OR 1.08;95% ci 0.83-1.39;P = 0.57, I2 = 0%)和MACE(主要不良心血管事件)(OR 1.13;95% ci 0.92-1.37;P = 0.25, i2 = 22%)。此外,支架内血栓形成的几率(OR 1.07;95% ci 0.77-1.47;P = 0.69, I2 = 0%)和中风(OR 1.50;95% ci 0.49-4.57;P = 0.48, I2 = 58%),组间差异无统计学意义。然而,PPAC与较高的出血几率相关(OR 1.78;95% ci 1.07-2.97;P = 0.03, i2 = 94%)。该荟萃分析显示,在STEMI PCI治疗后,PPAC和对照组的全因死亡率、心血管死亡率、支架血栓形成和卒中发生率均无显著差异。然而,PPAC与较高的出血几率相关。进一步的随机对照试验有必要证实这些发现。
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
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
112
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis is a long-awaited resource for contemporary cardiologists, hematologists, vascular medicine specialists and clinician-scientists actively involved in treatment decisions and clinical investigation of thrombotic disorders involving the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular systems. The principal focus of the Journal centers on the pathobiology of thrombosis and vascular disorders and the use of anticoagulants, platelet antagonists, cell-based therapies and interventions in scientific investigation, clinical-translational research and patient care. The Journal will publish original work which emphasizes the interface between fundamental scientific principles and clinical investigation, stimulating an interdisciplinary and scholarly dialogue in thrombosis and vascular science. Published works will also define platforms for translational research, drug development, clinical trials and patient-directed applications. The Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis'' integrated format will expand the reader''s knowledge base and provide important insights for both the investigation and direct clinical application of the most rapidly growing fields in medicine-thrombosis and vascular science.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信