非急性心肌缺血综合征的血运重建策略。

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Heart Pub Date : 2025-09-14 DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2025-326101
Michal J Kawczynski, Fabio Barili, James M Brophy, Raffaele De Caterina, Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai, Amedeo Anselmi, William E Boden, Alessandro Parolari, Samuel Heuts
{"title":"非急性心肌缺血综合征的血运重建策略。","authors":"Michal J Kawczynski, Fabio Barili, James M Brophy, Raffaele De Caterina, Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai, Amedeo Anselmi, William E Boden, Alessandro Parolari, Samuel Heuts","doi":"10.1136/heartjnl-2025-326101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Contemporary guidelines by the European Society for Cardiology and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association for the treatment of non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes dispute the value of revascularisation and differ in their recommendation to perform revascularisation. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, evaluating the strength of evidence for the comparative incremental effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over medical therapy on long-term outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis was designed (PROSPERO CRD42024541215, date 20 May 2024), including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2005 and 10 June 2025, which consisted of three initial treatment modalities: optimal medical therapy (OMT), PCI+OMT and CABG+OMT. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at maximum follow-up; secondary outcomes were trates of the rates of myocardial infarction, stroke and re-revascularisation at maximum follow-up, expressed in HRs and 95% credible intervals (CrIs), accompanied by surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>10 RCTs, comprising 10 742 patients, were included. For all-cause mortality, the estimated median HR of CABG+OMT versus OMT was 0.84 (95% CrI 0.68-1.07); the HR of PCI+OMT versus OMT was 0.93 (0.79-1.16); and the HR of CABG+OMT versus PCI+OMT was 0.91 (0.71-1.13). The SUCRAs of a CABG+OMT strategy ranking as the optimal revascularisation treatment regarding mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and re-revascularisation were 88.1%, 99.7%, 17.5% and 99.5%, respectively. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses, including in the node-splitting models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This Bayesian network meta-analysis found that an initial CABG (+OMT) revascularisation strategy was associated with higher probabilities of optimal outcomes, with the exception of stroke, compared with an initial PCI (+OMT) revascularisation strategy, although CrIs overlapped, suggesting that some uncertainty remains.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024541215.</p>","PeriodicalId":12835,"journal":{"name":"Heart","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revascularisation strategies for non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes.\",\"authors\":\"Michal J Kawczynski, Fabio Barili, James M Brophy, Raffaele De Caterina, Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai, Amedeo Anselmi, William E Boden, Alessandro Parolari, Samuel Heuts\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/heartjnl-2025-326101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Contemporary guidelines by the European Society for Cardiology and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association for the treatment of non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes dispute the value of revascularisation and differ in their recommendation to perform revascularisation. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, evaluating the strength of evidence for the comparative incremental effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over medical therapy on long-term outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis was designed (PROSPERO CRD42024541215, date 20 May 2024), including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2005 and 10 June 2025, which consisted of three initial treatment modalities: optimal medical therapy (OMT), PCI+OMT and CABG+OMT. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at maximum follow-up; secondary outcomes were trates of the rates of myocardial infarction, stroke and re-revascularisation at maximum follow-up, expressed in HRs and 95% credible intervals (CrIs), accompanied by surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>10 RCTs, comprising 10 742 patients, were included. For all-cause mortality, the estimated median HR of CABG+OMT versus OMT was 0.84 (95% CrI 0.68-1.07); the HR of PCI+OMT versus OMT was 0.93 (0.79-1.16); and the HR of CABG+OMT versus PCI+OMT was 0.91 (0.71-1.13). The SUCRAs of a CABG+OMT strategy ranking as the optimal revascularisation treatment regarding mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and re-revascularisation were 88.1%, 99.7%, 17.5% and 99.5%, respectively. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses, including in the node-splitting models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This Bayesian network meta-analysis found that an initial CABG (+OMT) revascularisation strategy was associated with higher probabilities of optimal outcomes, with the exception of stroke, compared with an initial PCI (+OMT) revascularisation strategy, although CrIs overlapped, suggesting that some uncertainty remains.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024541215.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12835,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Heart\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Heart\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2025-326101\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2025-326101","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:欧洲心脏病学会和美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会关于非急性心肌缺血综合征治疗的现行指南对血运重建的价值存在争议,并且对进行血运重建的建议存在分歧。我们进行了一项贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,评估了冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)与经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)相对于药物治疗对长期预后的增量有效性比较的证据强度。方法:设计分层贝叶斯网络meta分析(PROSPERO CRD42024541215,日期为2024年5月20日),纳入2005年至2025年6月10日发表的随机对照试验(RCTs),包括三种初始治疗方式:最佳药物治疗(OMT)、PCI+OMT和CABG+OMT。主要结局是最大随访时的全因死亡率;次要结局是最大随访时心肌梗死、卒中和再血血重建的发生率,以hr和95%可信区间(CrIs)表示,并伴有累积排名曲线下表面(SUCRA)评分。结果:纳入10项随机对照试验,共10742例患者。对于全因死亡率,CABG+OMT与OMT的估计中位HR为0.84 (95% CrI 0.68-1.07);PCI+OMT与OMT的HR为0.93 (0.79-1.16);CABG+OMT与PCI+OMT的HR为0.91(0.71-1.13)。CABG+OMT策略在死亡率、心肌梗死、卒中和再血运重建方面的SUCRAs分别为88.1%、99.7%、17.5%和99.5%。敏感性分析的结果是一致的,包括在节点分裂模型中。结论:本贝叶斯网络荟萃分析发现,与初始PCI (+OMT)血运重建策略相比,初始CABG (+OMT)血运重建策略具有更高的最佳结果概率,但卒中除外,尽管cri重叠,表明仍存在一些不确定性。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42024541215。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revascularisation strategies for non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes.

Background: Contemporary guidelines by the European Society for Cardiology and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association for the treatment of non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes dispute the value of revascularisation and differ in their recommendation to perform revascularisation. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, evaluating the strength of evidence for the comparative incremental effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over medical therapy on long-term outcomes.

Methods: A hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis was designed (PROSPERO CRD42024541215, date 20 May 2024), including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2005 and 10 June 2025, which consisted of three initial treatment modalities: optimal medical therapy (OMT), PCI+OMT and CABG+OMT. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at maximum follow-up; secondary outcomes were trates of the rates of myocardial infarction, stroke and re-revascularisation at maximum follow-up, expressed in HRs and 95% credible intervals (CrIs), accompanied by surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores.

Results: 10 RCTs, comprising 10 742 patients, were included. For all-cause mortality, the estimated median HR of CABG+OMT versus OMT was 0.84 (95% CrI 0.68-1.07); the HR of PCI+OMT versus OMT was 0.93 (0.79-1.16); and the HR of CABG+OMT versus PCI+OMT was 0.91 (0.71-1.13). The SUCRAs of a CABG+OMT strategy ranking as the optimal revascularisation treatment regarding mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and re-revascularisation were 88.1%, 99.7%, 17.5% and 99.5%, respectively. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses, including in the node-splitting models.

Conclusions: This Bayesian network meta-analysis found that an initial CABG (+OMT) revascularisation strategy was associated with higher probabilities of optimal outcomes, with the exception of stroke, compared with an initial PCI (+OMT) revascularisation strategy, although CrIs overlapped, suggesting that some uncertainty remains.

Prospero registration number: CRD42024541215.

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
Heart
Heart 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
320
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Heart is an international peer reviewed journal that keeps cardiologists up to date with important research advances in cardiovascular disease. New scientific developments are highlighted in editorials and put in context with concise review articles. There is one free Editor’s Choice article in each issue, with open access options available to authors for all articles. Education in Heart articles provide a comprehensive, continuously updated, cardiology curriculum.
×
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