Search

Background: Short-term and long-term comparative outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery (MVCA) or left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease are highly debated., Goals: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the difference between PCI and CABG for the treatment of patients with MVCA or LMCA in long-term follow-up., Methods: Literatures were searched in PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2021, including RCTs and observational studies (OSs). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 10 years follow-up, and the secondary outcomes included cardiac mortality, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction, and stroke., Results: A total of 5 RCTs reporting data from 3013 participants and 4 OSs of 5608 participants were included for analysis. There was no significant difference between PCI and CABG in all-cause mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.19]), whereas PCI was associated with higher cardiac mortality (OR 0.76 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.90]) and repeated revascularization rate comparing to CABG (OR 1.77 [95% CI 1.08 to 2.89]; I 2  = 94.61%). The difference between PCI and CABG in repeated revascularization in either RCTs or OSs, in myocardial infarction in either RCTs or OSs were not significant. In OSs, stroke rate in PCI group was lower than those in CABG, but not in RCTs. There was a significant increase of stroke rate in CABG comparing to PCI (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.80]; I 2  = 0.00%). No significant difference between PCI and CABG in myocardial infarction was not observed (OR 0.92 [95% CI 0.64 to 1.31]; I 2  = 57.84%)., Conclusion: Evidence from our study and prior studies suggested the superiority of CABG over PCI in improving 5- but not 10-year survival among patients with MVCA. In the contrast, there was no significant difference between CABG and PCI for treating patients with LMCA in either 5- or 10-year survival rate. More long-term trials are needed to better define differences of outcome between 2 techniques., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: Action observation training (AOT) has been used as a new intervention for improving upper limb motor functions in people with stroke. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the effects of AOT on improving upper limb motor functions in people with stroke., Methods: We searched ten electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effects of AOT on upper limb motor functions in stroke survivors. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed by the Risk of Bias Tool in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed by pooling the standardized mean difference (SMD) of upper limb motor outcomes., Results: Seven studies of 276 participants with stroke were included. Meta-analysis showed a significant effect favoring AOT on improving upper limb motor functions in patients with stroke [SMD = 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 0.61, I2 = 10.14%, p = 0.007]., Conclusions: AOT appears to be an effective intervention for improving the upper limb motor functions in people after stroke. Further studies need to investigate the neural mechanism underlying the effects of AOT., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.