scholarly journals Two-Year Outcomes With the Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffold for Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Seven Randomized Trials With an Individual Patient Data Substudy

2017 ◽  
Vol 66 (5) ◽  
pp. 1626
Author(s):  
Z.A. Ali ◽  
P.W. Serruys ◽  
T. Kimura ◽  
R. Gao ◽  
S.G. Ellis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
Bioresorbable Scaffold ◽  
Artery Disease

scholarly journals Colchicine in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Kofler ◽  
Reto Kurmann ◽  
Dirk Lehnick ◽  
Giacomo Maria Cioffi ◽  
Sujay Chandran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Sequential Analyses

Background Inflammation plays a pivotal role in coronary artery disease (CAD). The anti‐inflammatory drug colchicine seems to reduce ischemic events in patients with CAD. So far there is equipoise about its safety and impact on mortality. Methods and Results To evaluate the utility of colchicine in patients with acute and chronic CAD, we performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and conference abstracts were searched from January 1975 to October 2020. Randomized trials assessing colchicine compared with placebo/standard therapy in patients with CAD were included. Data were combined using random‐effects models. The reliability of the available data was tested using trial sequential analyses . Of 3108 citations, 13 randomized trials (n=13 125) were included. Colchicine versus placebo/standard therapy in patients with CAD reduced risk of myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR] 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46–0.90; P =0.01; I 2 41%) and stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31–0.81; P =0.005; I 2 0%). But treatment with colchicine compared with placebo/standard therapy had no influence on all‐cause and cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65–1.41; P =0.83; I 2 24%; and OR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.55–1.22; P =0.45; I 2 0%, respectively). Colchicine increased the risk for gastrointestinal side effects ( P <0.001). According to trial sequential analyses, there is only sufficient evidence for a myocardial infarction risk reduction with colchicine. Conclusions Among patients with CAD, colchicine reduces the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, but has a higher rate of gastrointestinal upset with no influence on all‐cause mortality.

scholarly journals Discrimination capability of pretest probability of stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis suggesting how to improve validation procedures

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e047677
Author(s):  
Pierpaolo Mincarone ◽  
Antonella Bodini ◽  
Maria Rosaria Tumolo ◽  
Federico Vozzi ◽  
Silvia Rocchiccioli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Stable Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
First Line ◽  
Discrimination Capability ◽  
Artery Disease

ObjectiveExternally validated pretest probability models for risk stratification of subjects with chest pain and suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), determined through invasive coronary angiography or coronary CT angiography, are analysed to characterise the best validation procedures in terms of discriminatory ability, predictive variables and method completeness.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesGlobal Health (Ovid), Healthstar (Ovid) and MEDLINE (Ovid) searched on 22 April 2020.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies validating pretest models for the first-line assessment of patients with chest pain and suspected stable CAD. Reasons for exclusion: acute coronary syndrome, unstable chest pain, a history of myocardial infarction or previous revascularisation; models referring to diagnostic procedures different from the usual practices of the first-line assessment; univariable models; lack of quantitative discrimination capability.MethodsEligibility screening and review were performed independently by all the authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus among all the authors. The quality assessment of studies conforms to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). A random effects meta-analysis of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values for each validated model was performed.Results27 studies were included for a total of 15 models. Besides age, sex and symptom typicality, other risk factors are smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia. Only one model considers genetic profile. AUC values range from 0.51 to 0.81. Significant heterogeneity (p<0.003) was found in all but two cases (p>0.12). Values of I2 >90% for most analyses and not significant meta-regression results undermined relevant interpretations. A detailed discussion of individual results was then carried out.ConclusionsWe recommend a clearer statement of endpoints, their consistent measurement both in the derivation and validation phases, more comprehensive validation analyses and the enhancement of threshold validations to assess the effects of pretest models on clinical management.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139388.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document