Effects of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Reduced Ejection Fraction Heart Failure and Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the effects of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on the clinical outcomes of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) complicated with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF) through meta-analysis. METHODS: Three major literature databases - PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane - were searched by search terms and the literature retrieval time was publications dating from January 2007 to December 2021. To search for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the efficacy of PCI and CABG in patients with CHD and HFrEF, the abstract or full text of the literature was read and the final included literature was determined, according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of the included literature was evaluated using the Ottawa scale and data extraction was further completed. Data analysis was made using RevMan5.4 and R4.1 software; relevant forest plots and funnel plots were made, according to the extracted data. Egger's test was used to evaluate whether the data had publication bias. Outcomes were the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were included and 11,032 subjects were included, made up of 5,521 cases of PCI and 5,511 cases of CABG. The results showed no significant difference between the two groups in cardiac mortality (CM) (RR=1.13, 95% CI 0.98-1.30, P = 0.10) and in overall all-cause mortality (ACM) (RR=1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.37, P = 0.25). In the subgroup analysis of ACM, in the subgroups with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 35% and exceeding 35% and less than 50% (RR=1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.37, P = 0.25) between the two groups, there was no statistical difference. However, among other MACE, compared with the PCI group, the CABG group had a lower risk of MACE (RR=1.58, 95%CI 1.49-1.70, P < 0.00001), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR=1.99, 95% CI 1.02-3.88, P = 0.04), heart failure (HF) (RR=1.29, 95% CI 1.17-1.43, P < 0.00001) and revascularization (RR=2.74, 95% CI 1.93-3.90, P < 0.00001). Finally in the CABG group, the risk of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) was higher (RR=0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.86, P = 0.0006) than the PCI group. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rates of PCI and CABG were similar in patients with CHD complicated with HFrEF. Compared with PCI, CABG had a lower incidence of MACE, MI, HF, and revascularization, and a higher incidence of stroke or TIA.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».