Evidence for Use of Coronary Stents: A Hierarchical Bayesian Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Coronary stents are widely used in interventional cardiology, but a current quantitative systematic overview comparing routine coronary stenting with standard percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and restricted stenting (provisional stenting) has not been published. PURPOSE: To summarize results from all randomized clinical trials comparing routine coronary stenting with standard PTCA. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched by using the key words angioplasty and stent. References from identified articles were also reviewed. In addition, several prominent general medical and cardiology journals were searched and agencies known to perform systematic reviews were consulted. STUDY SELECTION: All comparative randomized clinical trials were included, except those involving primary angioplasty for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. DATA EXTRACTION: A specified protocol was followed, and two of the authors independently extracted the data. Outcomes assessed were total mortality, myocardial infarction, angiographic restenosis, coronary artery bypass surgery, repeated PTCA, and freedom from angina. DATA SYNTHESIS: The results were synthesized by using a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model. A total of 29 trials involving 9918 patients were identified. There was no evidence for a difference between routine coronary stenting and standard PTCA in terms of deaths or myocardial infarctions (odds ratio, 0.90 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.72 to 1.11]) or the need for coronary artery bypass surgery (odds ratio, 1.01 [CrI, 0.79 to 1.31]). Coronary stenting reduced the rate of restenosis (odds ratio, 0.52 [CrI, 0.37 to 0.69]) and the need for repeated PTCA (odds ratio, 0.59 [CrI, 0.50 to 0.68]). The trials showed a wide range of crossover rates from PTCA to stenting. By use of a multiplicative model, each 10% increase in crossover rate decreased the need for repeated angioplasty by approximately 8% (odds ratio multiplying factor, 1.08 [CrI, 0.98 to 1.18]). Routine stenting probably reduces the need for repeated angioplasty by fewer than 4 to 5 per 100 treated persons compared with PTCA with provisional stenting. Studies were not blinded and suggest a bias with a possible overestimation of this benefit. CONCLUSIONS: In the controlled environment of randomized clinical trials, routine coronary stenting is safe but probably not associated with important reductions in rates of mortality, acute myocardial infarction, or coronary artery bypass surgery compared with standard PTCA with provisional stenting. Coronary stenting is associated with substantial reductions in angiographic restenosis rates and the subsequent need for repeated PTCA, although this benefit may be overestimated because of trial designs. The incremental benefit of routine stenting for reducing repeated angioplasty diminishes as the crossover rate of stenting with conventional PTCA increases.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,104 | 0,201 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,020 | 0,058 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,015 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».