Early Coronary Angiography in Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Without ST-Segment Elevation: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Comparative Analysis of Studies.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Cardiology in Review Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-18 DOI:10.1097/CRD.0000000000000551
Rahul Gupta, Amir Hossein Behnoush, Amirmohammad Khalaji, Aaqib H Malik, Akshay Goel, Jayakumar Sreenivasan, Dhrubajyoti Bandyopadhyay, Ankit Agrawal, William H Frishman, Wilbert S Aronow, Apurva V Vyas, Nainesh C Patel
{"title":"Early Coronary Angiography in Patients With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Without ST-Segment Elevation: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Comparative Analysis of Studies.","authors":"Rahul Gupta, Amir Hossein Behnoush, Amirmohammad Khalaji, Aaqib H Malik, Akshay Goel, Jayakumar Sreenivasan, Dhrubajyoti Bandyopadhyay, Ankit Agrawal, William H Frishman, Wilbert S Aronow, Apurva V Vyas, Nainesh C Patel","doi":"10.1097/CRD.0000000000000551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has a high mortality rate. Unlike ST-elevation myocardial infarction, the results of performing early coronary angiography (CAG) in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients are controversial. This study aimed to compare early and nonearly CAG in this population, in addition to the identification of differences between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies conducted in this regard. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library was performed to identify the relevant studies. Random-effect meta-analysis was done to calculate the pooled effect size of early versus nonearly CAG outcomes in all studies in addition to each of the RCT and observational subgroups of the studies. The relative risk ratio (RR), along with its 95% confidence interval (CI), was used as a measure of difference. A total of 16 studies including 5234 cases were included in our analyses. Compared with observational cohorts, RCT studies had patients with higher baseline comorbidities (older age, hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease). Random-effect analysis revealed a lower rate of in-hospital mortality in the early-CAG group (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97; P = 0.02); however, RCT studies did not find a statistical difference in this outcome (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83-1.23; P = 0.91). Moreover, mid-term mortality rates were lower in the early-CAG group (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98; P = 0.02), mostly due to observational studies. There was no significant difference between the groups in other efficacy and safety outcomes. Although early CAG was associated with lower in-hospital and mid-term mortality in overall analyses, no such difference was confirmed by the results obtained from RCTs. Current evidence from RCTs may not be representative of real-world patients and should be interpreted within its limitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9549,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology in Review","volume":" ","pages":"27-35"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology in Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CRD.0000000000000551","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has a high mortality rate. Unlike ST-elevation myocardial infarction, the results of performing early coronary angiography (CAG) in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients are controversial. This study aimed to compare early and nonearly CAG in this population, in addition to the identification of differences between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies conducted in this regard. A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library was performed to identify the relevant studies. Random-effect meta-analysis was done to calculate the pooled effect size of early versus nonearly CAG outcomes in all studies in addition to each of the RCT and observational subgroups of the studies. The relative risk ratio (RR), along with its 95% confidence interval (CI), was used as a measure of difference. A total of 16 studies including 5234 cases were included in our analyses. Compared with observational cohorts, RCT studies had patients with higher baseline comorbidities (older age, hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease). Random-effect analysis revealed a lower rate of in-hospital mortality in the early-CAG group (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97; P = 0.02); however, RCT studies did not find a statistical difference in this outcome (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83-1.23; P = 0.91). Moreover, mid-term mortality rates were lower in the early-CAG group (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98; P = 0.02), mostly due to observational studies. There was no significant difference between the groups in other efficacy and safety outcomes. Although early CAG was associated with lower in-hospital and mid-term mortality in overall analyses, no such difference was confirmed by the results obtained from RCTs. Current evidence from RCTs may not be representative of real-world patients and should be interpreted within its limitation.

院外心脏骤停无st段抬高患者的早期冠状动脉造影:系统回顾、荟萃分析和比较分析研究
院外心脏骤停的死亡率很高。与st段抬高型心肌梗死不同,对非st段抬高型心肌梗死患者进行早期冠状动脉造影(CAG)的结果存在争议。本研究旨在比较该人群的早期和非早期CAG,并确定在这方面进行的随机对照试验(rct)和观察性研究之间的差异。系统检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆以确定相关研究。进行随机效应荟萃分析,以计算所有研究中早期与非早期CAG结果的合并效应大小,以及研究的每个RCT和观察亚组。相对风险比(RR)及其95%置信区间(CI)被用来衡量差异。我们的分析共纳入16项研究,包括5234例病例。与观察性队列相比,RCT研究的患者有更高的基线合并症(年龄较大、高血压、糖尿病和冠状动脉疾病)。随机效应分析显示,早期cag组的住院死亡率较低(RR, 0.79;95% ci, 0.65-0.97;P = 0.02);然而,RCT研究未发现该结果有统计学差异(RR, 1.01;95% ci, 0.83-1.23;P = 0.91)。早期cag组中期死亡率较低(RR, 0.87;95% ci, 0.78-0.98;P = 0.02),主要是由于观察性研究。两组在其他疗效和安全性方面无显著差异。尽管在总体分析中,早期CAG与较低的住院死亡率和中期死亡率相关,但随机对照试验的结果并未证实这种差异。目前来自随机对照试验的证据可能不能代表现实世界的患者,应在其局限性内进行解释。
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
Cardiology in Review
Cardiology in Review CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
76
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The mission of Cardiology in Review is to publish reviews on topics of current interest in cardiology that will foster increased understanding of the pathogenesis, diagnosis, clinical course, prevention, and treatment of cardiovascular disorders. Articles of the highest quality are written by authorities in the field and published promptly in a readable format with visual appeal
×
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