Search

Introduction: There is limited data comparing Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA) versus the usual Standard of care (SOC) in patients with suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare CCTA versus SOC in patients with stable CAD., Methods: We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CCTA with SOC, which included various functional testing approaches for evaluating stable CAD. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for unstable angina (UA), invasive angiography, revascularization, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)., Results: We identified 6 RCTs with 19,881 patients with stable CAD, of which 9995 underwent CCTA, and 9886 underwent SOC. There were no significant differences between CCTA and SOC in terms of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.91; 95 % CI: 0.70-1.19; p = 0.50), MI (RR: 0.78; 95 % CI: 0.58-1.05; p = 0.11), hospitalizations for UA (RR: 1.20; 95 % CI: 0.95-1.51;p = 0.12), invasive angiography (RR: 0.71; 95 % CI: 0.32-1.61; p = 0.42), revascularization (RR:1.25; 95 % CI: 0.83-1.89; p = 0.29), PCI (RR: 1.20; 95 % CI: 0.78-1.85; p = 0.40), and CABG rates (RR: 0.89; 95 % CI: 0.530-1.49; p = 0.65)., Conclusion: In patients with stable CAD, CCTA is associated with similar outcomes compared to the usual Standard of care. Given its potential to quickly rule out severe obstructive disease, its ability to provide non-invasive physiology and identify non-obstructive CAD with plaque information makes it an attractive addition to the available armamentarium to evaluate chest pain., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Rotational and orbital coronary atherectomy (CA) are commonly utilized to treat complex calcified coronary lesions. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate sex differences in procedural complications and clinical outcomes after CA., Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases were searched for all studies comparing sex differences in procedural and clinical outcomes following CA. The outcomes of interest were procedural complications (coronary dissection, stroke, major bleeding, coronary perforation, cardiac tamponade, and slow or no flow in target vessel) and the clinical outcomes (including early mortality, mid-term all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization). Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model., Results: Six observational studies with 3517 patients (2420 men and 1035 women) were included in this meta-analysis. While there was no significant difference in the early mortality (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.37-3.53; P = 0.83) between men and women, at a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, all-cause mortality was significantly higher in women (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.11-1.49; P = 0.0009). Women had an increased risk of procedure-related stroke (RR, 3.98; 95% CI, 1.06-14.90; P = 0.04), coronary dissection (RR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.23-3.58; P = 0.006), and bleeding (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.30-3.93; P = 0.004), whereas the rates of coronary perforation, cardiac tamponade, and the risk of slow or no flow in the revascularized artery were similar in both., Conclusion: In our analysis, women undergoing CA are at increased risk of mid-term mortality and procedure-related complications including stroke, coronary dissection, and major bleeding., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Studies comparing outcomes of multivessel (MV) vs. culprit-vessel (CV) only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during index cardiac catheterization in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) have reported conflicting results. In this systematic review we aim to investigate outcomes with MV vs. CV-only revascularization strategies in patients with acute MI and CS., Methods and Results: PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were queried for studies comparing MV vs. CV PCI in patients with acute MI and CS. Data were extracted and pooled by means of random effects model. Primary outcome was early all-cause mortality (up to 30 days), while the secondary outcomes included late all-cause mortality (mean, 11.4 months), stroke, new renal replacement therapy, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and bleeding. Pooled odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and number needed to harm (NNH) were calculated. A total of 16 studies enrolling 75  431 patients were included. The MV PCI was associated with higher risk of early mortality [OR 1.17, 95% CI (1.00-1.35); P = 0.04; NNH = 62], stroke [1.15 (1.03-1.29); P = 0.01; NNH = 351], and new renal replacement therapy [1.33 (1.06-1.67); P = 0.01; NNH = 61]; and with lower risk of repeat revascularization [0.61 (0.41-0.89); P = 0.01] when compared with CV PCI. No significant difference was observed in late-term mortality [1.02 (0.84-1.25); P = 0.84], risk of reinfarction [1.13 (0.94-1.35); P = 0.18], or bleeding [1.21 (0.94-1.55); P = 0.13] between groups., Conclusion: Among patients with acute MI and CS, MV PCI during index cardiac catheterization was associated with higher risk of early mortality, stroke, and renal replacement therapy., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a reasonable alternative to coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in well-selected patients with unprotected left main coronary disease (LMCD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of assessing the impact of sex on outcomes of PCI in patients with unprotected LMCD., Methods: A systematic search of PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify studies comparing the outcomes of men vs. women among patients undergoing PCI for unprotected LMCD. The primary outcome of interest was study defined major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis and stroke. For all outcomes, pooled odds ratios (OR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model., Results: Six studies with a total of 6515 individuals (4954 men, 1561women) with a mean follow up of 36 months were included in the analysis. MACE and MI were significantly higher in women with OR of 1.17 (95% CI 1.01-1.36; p = 0.03) and 1.42 (95% CI 1.07-1.87; p = 0.01) respectively. All-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and TLR were similar among men and women., Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that women undergoing PCI for unprotected LMCD have higher rates of MACE and MI compared to men., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)