伴左心室收缩功能障碍或射血分数保留的慢性冠心病的治疗策略--系统回顾和元分析。

IF 2.7 Q2 PATHOLOGY
Elena Zelikovna Golukhova, Inessa Viktorovna Slivneva, Olga Sergeevna Kozlova, Bektur Shukurbekovich Berdibekov, Ivan Ivanovich Skopin, Vadim Yuryevich Merzlyakov, Renat Kamilyevich Baichurin, Igor Yuryevich Sigaev, Milena Abrekovna Keren, Mikhail Durmishkhanovich Alshibaya, Damir Ildarovich Marapov, Milena Artemovna Arzumanyan
{"title":"伴左心室收缩功能障碍或射血分数保留的慢性冠心病的治疗策略--系统回顾和元分析。","authors":"Elena Zelikovna Golukhova, Inessa Viktorovna Slivneva, Olga Sergeevna Kozlova, Bektur Shukurbekovich Berdibekov, Ivan Ivanovich Skopin, Vadim Yuryevich Merzlyakov, Renat Kamilyevich Baichurin, Igor Yuryevich Sigaev, Milena Abrekovna Keren, Mikhail Durmishkhanovich Alshibaya, Damir Ildarovich Marapov, Milena Artemovna Arzumanyan","doi":"10.3390/pathophysiology30040046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this meta-analysis, we examine the advantages of invasive strategies for patients diagnosed with chronic coronary heart disease (CHD) and preserved left ventricular (LV) function, as well as those with significant LV systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction (EF) < 45%).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search to identify all randomized trials directly comparing invasive strategies with optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients diagnosed with chronic CHD. Data from these trials were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed was the all-cause mortality, while secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization. This study was designed to assess the benefits of both invasive strategies and OMT in patients with preserved LV function and in those with LV systolic dysfunction. The statistical analysis of the data was conducted using the Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve randomized studies enrolling 13,912 patients were included in the final analysis. Among the patients with chronic CHD and preserved LV systolic function, revascularization did not demonstrate a reduction in all-cause mortality (8.52% vs. 8.45%, <i>p</i> = 0.45), CV death (3.41% vs. 3.62%, <i>p</i> = 0.08), or the incidence of MI (9.88% vs. 10.49%, <i>p</i> = 0.47). However, the need for unplanned myocardial revascularization was significantly lower in the group following the initial invasive approach compared to patients undergoing OMT (14.75% vs. 25.72%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). In contrast, the invasive strategy emerged as the preferred treatment modality for patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction. This approach demonstrated lower rates of all-cause mortality (40.61% vs. 46.52%, <i>p</i> = 0.004), CV death (28.75% vs. 35.82%, <i>p</i> = 0.0004), and MI (8.19% vs. 10.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In individuals diagnosed with chronic CHD and preserved LV EF, the initial invasive approach did not demonstrate a clinical advantage over OMT. Conversely, in patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction, myocardial revascularization was found to reduce the risks of CV events and enhance the overall outcomes. These findings hold significant clinical relevance for optimizing treatment strategies in patients with chronic CHD, contingent upon myocardial contractility status.</p>","PeriodicalId":19852,"journal":{"name":"Pathophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10747738/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment Strategies for Chronic Coronary Heart Disease with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction or Preserved Ejection Fraction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Elena Zelikovna Golukhova, Inessa Viktorovna Slivneva, Olga Sergeevna Kozlova, Bektur Shukurbekovich Berdibekov, Ivan Ivanovich Skopin, Vadim Yuryevich Merzlyakov, Renat Kamilyevich Baichurin, Igor Yuryevich Sigaev, Milena Abrekovna Keren, Mikhail Durmishkhanovich Alshibaya, Damir Ildarovich Marapov, Milena Artemovna Arzumanyan\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/pathophysiology30040046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this meta-analysis, we examine the advantages of invasive strategies for patients diagnosed with chronic coronary heart disease (CHD) and preserved left ventricular (LV) function, as well as those with significant LV systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction (EF) < 45%).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search to identify all randomized trials directly comparing invasive strategies with optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients diagnosed with chronic CHD. Data from these trials were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed was the all-cause mortality, while secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization. This study was designed to assess the benefits of both invasive strategies and OMT in patients with preserved LV function and in those with LV systolic dysfunction. The statistical analysis of the data was conducted using the Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve randomized studies enrolling 13,912 patients were included in the final analysis. Among the patients with chronic CHD and preserved LV systolic function, revascularization did not demonstrate a reduction in all-cause mortality (8.52% vs. 8.45%, <i>p</i> = 0.45), CV death (3.41% vs. 3.62%, <i>p</i> = 0.08), or the incidence of MI (9.88% vs. 10.49%, <i>p</i> = 0.47). However, the need for unplanned myocardial revascularization was significantly lower in the group following the initial invasive approach compared to patients undergoing OMT (14.75% vs. 25.72%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). In contrast, the invasive strategy emerged as the preferred treatment modality for patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction. This approach demonstrated lower rates of all-cause mortality (40.61% vs. 46.52%, <i>p</i> = 0.004), CV death (28.75% vs. 35.82%, <i>p</i> = 0.0004), and MI (8.19% vs. 10.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In individuals diagnosed with chronic CHD and preserved LV EF, the initial invasive approach did not demonstrate a clinical advantage over OMT. Conversely, in patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction, myocardial revascularization was found to reduce the risks of CV events and enhance the overall outcomes. These findings hold significant clinical relevance for optimizing treatment strategies in patients with chronic CHD, contingent upon myocardial contractility status.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pathophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10747738/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pathophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/pathophysiology30040046\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pathophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/pathophysiology30040046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这项荟萃分析中,我们研究了对确诊为慢性冠心病(CHD)且左心室(LV)功能保留的患者以及左心室收缩功能明显障碍(LV射血分数(EF)<45%)的患者采用侵入性策略的优势:我们进行了一次系统性检索,以确定所有直接比较慢性冠心病患者的侵入性策略与最佳药物治疗(OMT)的随机试验。我们采用随机效应荟萃分析法对这些试验的数据进行了汇总。评估的主要结果是全因死亡率,次要终点包括心血管(CV)死亡、中风、心肌梗死(MI)和意外血管再通。该研究旨在评估有创策略和 OMT 对左心室功能保留患者和左心室收缩功能障碍患者的益处。研究数据的统计分析采用了5.4.1版的Review Manager(RevMan)软件(Cochrane Collaboration,2020年):最终分析纳入了 12 项随机研究,共 13,912 例患者。在患有慢性冠心病且左心室收缩功能保留的患者中,血管重建并不能降低全因死亡率(8.52% vs. 8.45%,P = 0.45)、冠心病死亡(3.41% vs. 3.62%,P = 0.08)或心肌梗死发生率(9.88% vs. 10.49%,P = 0.47)。然而,与接受 OMT 的患者相比,采用初始有创方法的患者组对计划外心肌血运重建的需求明显降低(14.75% 对 25.72%,p < 0.001)。相比之下,有创策略成为缺血性左心室收缩功能障碍患者的首选治疗方式。这种方法的全因死亡率(40.61% vs. 46.52%,P = 0.004)、心血管疾病死亡率(28.75% vs. 35.82%,P = 0.0004)和心肌梗死率(8.19% vs. 10.8%,P = 0.03)均较低:对于确诊为慢性冠心病且左心室EF值保留的患者,最初的侵入性方法与OMT相比并不具有临床优势。相反,在缺血性左心室收缩功能障碍患者中,心肌血运重建可降低发生心血管事件的风险,提高总体疗效。这些研究结果对优化慢性冠心病患者的治疗策略具有重要的临床意义,这取决于心肌收缩力状态。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Treatment Strategies for Chronic Coronary Heart Disease with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction or Preserved Ejection Fraction-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

In this meta-analysis, we examine the advantages of invasive strategies for patients diagnosed with chronic coronary heart disease (CHD) and preserved left ventricular (LV) function, as well as those with significant LV systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction (EF) < 45%).

Material and methods: We conducted a systematic search to identify all randomized trials directly comparing invasive strategies with optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients diagnosed with chronic CHD. Data from these trials were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome assessed was the all-cause mortality, while secondary endpoints included cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization. This study was designed to assess the benefits of both invasive strategies and OMT in patients with preserved LV function and in those with LV systolic dysfunction. The statistical analysis of the data was conducted using the Review Manager (RevMan) software, version 5.4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020).

Results: Twelve randomized studies enrolling 13,912 patients were included in the final analysis. Among the patients with chronic CHD and preserved LV systolic function, revascularization did not demonstrate a reduction in all-cause mortality (8.52% vs. 8.45%, p = 0.45), CV death (3.41% vs. 3.62%, p = 0.08), or the incidence of MI (9.88% vs. 10.49%, p = 0.47). However, the need for unplanned myocardial revascularization was significantly lower in the group following the initial invasive approach compared to patients undergoing OMT (14.75% vs. 25.72%, p < 0.001). In contrast, the invasive strategy emerged as the preferred treatment modality for patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction. This approach demonstrated lower rates of all-cause mortality (40.61% vs. 46.52%, p = 0.004), CV death (28.75% vs. 35.82%, p = 0.0004), and MI (8.19% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.03).

Conclusions: In individuals diagnosed with chronic CHD and preserved LV EF, the initial invasive approach did not demonstrate a clinical advantage over OMT. Conversely, in patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction, myocardial revascularization was found to reduce the risks of CV events and enhance the overall outcomes. These findings hold significant clinical relevance for optimizing treatment strategies in patients with chronic CHD, contingent upon myocardial contractility status.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pathophysiology
Pathophysiology Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: Pathophysiology is an international journal which publishes papers in English which address the etiology, development, and elimination of pathological processes. Contributions on the basic mechanisms underlying these processes, model systems and interdisciplinary approaches are strongly encouraged.
×
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