严重缺血性左心室收缩功能障碍的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与最佳药物治疗的对比

Ruth A. Mathew Kalathil MD , Akshay Machanahalli Balakrishna MD , Ahmed El-Shaer MD , Andrew M. Goldsweig MD, MS , Khagendra Dahal MD , Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula MD, MSc , Ahmed Aboeata MD
{"title":"严重缺血性左心室收缩功能障碍的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与最佳药物治疗的对比","authors":"Ruth A. Mathew Kalathil MD ,&nbsp;Akshay Machanahalli Balakrishna MD ,&nbsp;Ahmed El-Shaer MD ,&nbsp;Andrew M. Goldsweig MD, MS ,&nbsp;Khagendra Dahal MD ,&nbsp;Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Ahmed Aboeata MD","doi":"10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2024.04.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Coronary artery disease is the most common cause of heart failure, which is the leading cause of cardiovascular-related death worldwide. There are insufficient data to make strong recommendations for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). In that context, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of PCI with those of optimal medical therapy alone in patients with severe ischemic LVSD. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and <span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg> from inception to December 2023. Our outcome of interest was all-cause mortality in patients undergoing PCI vs medical therapy. We used random effects models to aggregate data and to calculate pooled incidence and relative risk with 95% CIs. Four studies including 2 randomized controlled trials with 2080 patients (PCI, 1082; optimal medical therapy, 998) were included. All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between the groups: 168 patients (15.5%) in the PCI group vs 200 patients (20.0%) in the optimal medical therapy group (relative risk, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09; <em>P</em>=.25). In conclusion, the available evidence indicates that PCI does not improve all-cause mortality in patients with severe LVSD without lifestyle-limiting anginal symptoms. Further data are needed to identify subgroups of patients better served by each modality.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":94132,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454824000250/pdfft?md5=7fe4927a10a4fe4f8a0c1dbe0c0317dd&pid=1-s2.0-S2542454824000250-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Optimal Medical Therapy for Severe Ischemic Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction\",\"authors\":\"Ruth A. Mathew Kalathil MD ,&nbsp;Akshay Machanahalli Balakrishna MD ,&nbsp;Ahmed El-Shaer MD ,&nbsp;Andrew M. Goldsweig MD, MS ,&nbsp;Khagendra Dahal MD ,&nbsp;Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Ahmed Aboeata MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2024.04.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Coronary artery disease is the most common cause of heart failure, which is the leading cause of cardiovascular-related death worldwide. There are insufficient data to make strong recommendations for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). In that context, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of PCI with those of optimal medical therapy alone in patients with severe ischemic LVSD. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and <span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg> from inception to December 2023. Our outcome of interest was all-cause mortality in patients undergoing PCI vs medical therapy. We used random effects models to aggregate data and to calculate pooled incidence and relative risk with 95% CIs. Four studies including 2 randomized controlled trials with 2080 patients (PCI, 1082; optimal medical therapy, 998) were included. All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between the groups: 168 patients (15.5%) in the PCI group vs 200 patients (20.0%) in the optimal medical therapy group (relative risk, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09; <em>P</em>=.25). In conclusion, the available evidence indicates that PCI does not improve all-cause mortality in patients with severe LVSD without lifestyle-limiting anginal symptoms. Further data are needed to identify subgroups of patients better served by each modality.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94132,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454824000250/pdfft?md5=7fe4927a10a4fe4f8a0c1dbe0c0317dd&pid=1-s2.0-S2542454824000250-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454824000250\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454824000250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

冠状动脉疾病是导致心力衰竭的最常见原因,而心力衰竭是全球心血管相关死亡的主要原因。对于严重缺血性左室收缩功能障碍(LVSD)患者的经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI),目前还没有足够的数据给出有力的建议。在这种情况下,我们进行了一项荟萃分析,比较了重度缺血性左心室收缩功能障碍患者接受 PCI 与单纯接受最佳药物治疗的结果。我们在PubMed、EMBASE和ClinicalTrials.gov上进行了系统检索,检索时间从开始到2023年12月。我们关注的结果是接受 PCI 与药物治疗的患者的全因死亡率。我们使用随机效应模型汇总数据,并计算出集合发病率和相对风险以及 95% CI。共纳入了四项研究,包括两项随机对照试验,共 2080 名患者(PCI,1082 人;最佳医疗疗法,998 人)。两组全因死亡率无显著差异:PCI 组 168 例患者(15.5%)与最佳药物治疗组 200 例患者(20.0%)(相对风险,0.88;95% CI,0.75-1.09;P=.25)。总之,现有证据表明,PCI 并不能改善无生活方式限制性心绞痛症状的重度 LVSD 患者的全因死亡率。还需要更多数据来确定每种方式更适合的患者亚群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Optimal Medical Therapy for Severe Ischemic Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

Coronary artery disease is the most common cause of heart failure, which is the leading cause of cardiovascular-related death worldwide. There are insufficient data to make strong recommendations for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). In that context, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of PCI with those of optimal medical therapy alone in patients with severe ischemic LVSD. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2023. Our outcome of interest was all-cause mortality in patients undergoing PCI vs medical therapy. We used random effects models to aggregate data and to calculate pooled incidence and relative risk with 95% CIs. Four studies including 2 randomized controlled trials with 2080 patients (PCI, 1082; optimal medical therapy, 998) were included. All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between the groups: 168 patients (15.5%) in the PCI group vs 200 patients (20.0%) in the optimal medical therapy group (relative risk, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09; P=.25). In conclusion, the available evidence indicates that PCI does not improve all-cause mortality in patients with severe LVSD without lifestyle-limiting anginal symptoms. Further data are needed to identify subgroups of patients better served by each modality.

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
Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes
Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes Surgery, Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Public Health and Health Policy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
49 days
×
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