Search

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.)

Background: While aortic valve replacement (AVR) is indicated for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), the appropriate management of asymptomatic severe AS remains unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of surgical AVR (SAVR) versus conservative treatment in patients with asymptomatic severe AS., Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar for studies comparing outcomes of SAVR versus conservative treatment in asymptomatic severe AS. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each individual study. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, 30-day operative mortality, sudden cardiac death (SCD), heart failure hospitalization (HFH), myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke., Results: A total of 8 studies with 2685 patients were included. The mean age was above 60 years, and the median follow-up duration was 4 years. Compared to conservative treatment, SAVR was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.64) and HFH rates (RR 0.18; 95% CI 0.05-0.71). There were no significant differences in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.03-1.67), non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.23-1.03), 30-day operative mortality (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-2.32), SCD (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.05-2.89), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.04-5.52), and stroke rates (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.35-4.11) between the two strategies., Conclusions: In patients with asymptomatic severe AS, SAVR is associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality and HFH compared to conservative treatment. While SAVR is a promising option for asymptomatic severe AS, most studies were observational and nonrandomized; randomized trials are needed to establish a clear benefit., 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 © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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.)