Effect of drug-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomised trials and an adjusted indirect comparison

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
pp. 853-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Piscione ◽  
Raffaele Piccolo ◽  
Salvatore Cassese ◽  
Gennaro Galasso ◽  
Roberta De Rosa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
St Segment Elevation ◽  
Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction ◽  
St Segment ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Drug Eluting ◽  
Adjusted Indirect Comparison

scholarly journals Effects of ischaemic postconditioning on outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e022509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenhua Xing ◽  
Liang Tang ◽  
Jiabing Huang ◽  
Xiaofan Peng ◽  
Xinqun Hu
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Cardiac Death ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
St Segment Elevation ◽  
Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction ◽  
St Segment ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
All Cause Mortality

ObjectiveThe aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of ischaemic postconditioning (IPC) therapy on hard clinical endpoints in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of IPC on the outcomes of patients with STEMI.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for relevant articles published prior to May 1, 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised trials comparing conventional PPCI to PPCI combined with IPC in STEMI patients were included. The primary endpoint was heart failure. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, heart failure and MI. The Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 4.2 was used to assess the risk of bias.Data extraction and synthesisRelevant data were extracted by two independent investigators. We derived pooled risk ratios (RRs) with random effects models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed.ResultsTen studies that had enrolled 3137 patients were included. PPCI combined with IPC failed to reduce heart failure (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.26, p=0.47; absolute risk: 3.64% in the IPC group and 4.11% in the PPCI only group), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.27, p=0.68; absolute risk: 5.07% in the IPC group and 5.27% in the PPCI onlygroup), MACE (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.32, p=0.69; absolute risk: 9.37% in the IPC group and 8.93% in the PPCI only group), cardiac death (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.93, p=0.24; absolute risk: 4.28% in the IPC group and 3.25% in the PPCI only group) and MI (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.38 to 3.12, p=0.88; absolute risk: 3.61% in the IPC group and 3.44% in the PPCI only group).ConclusionsIPC combined with PPCI does not reduce heart failure, MACE and all-cause mortality compared with traditional PPCI in patients with STEMI.Trial registration numberCRD42017063959

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document