Immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Inconsistent results exist regarding the treatment effectiveness of immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immediate versus deferred PCI in ACS patients. PubMed...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2020-07, Vol.15 (7), p.e0234655-e0234655, Article 0234655 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0234655 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | e0234655 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 15 |
| creator | Li, Weijun He, Wenhua Zhou, Yuqing Guo, Yanfei |
| description | Inconsistent results exist regarding the treatment effectiveness of immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immediate versus deferred PCI in ACS patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched from their inception up to August 2019. Random-effects models were employed to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weight mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited 3350 patients were selected for inclusion in the final meta-analysis. Four trials included patients with non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS), whereas the remaining six trials included patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). There were no significant differences between immediate versus deferred PCI for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.76, 95%CI, 0.33-1.75, P = 0.513; STEMI patients: RR, 1.24, 95%CI, 0.80-1.92, P = 0.335), myocardial infarction (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.88, 95%CI, 0.27-2.81, P = 0.826; STEMI patients: RR, 0.86, 95%CI, 0.43-1.74, P = 0.678), all-cause mortality (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.85, 95%CI, 0.38-1.88, P = 0.686; STEMI patients: RR, 1.16, 95%CI, 0.82-1.66, P = 0.407), target vessel revascularisation (NSTEACS patients: RR, 1.26, 95%CI, 0.29-5.43, P = 0.756; STEMI patients: RR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.51-1.97, P = 0.988), or major bleeding (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.99, 95%CI, 0.64-1.54, P = 0.972; STEMI patients: RR, 0.90, 95%CI, 0.45-1.77, P = 0.753). Although patients who underwent immediate PCI may experience increased incidences of cardiac death (RR, 1.19, 95%CI, 0.69-2.07, P = 0.525) and no or slow reflow (RR, 1.60, 95%CI, 0.91-2.84, P = 0.105), these increases were not statistically significant. We noted that immediate versus deferred PCI was associated with a reduced incidence of myocardial brush grade 3 (RR, 0.70, 95%CI, 0.56-0.88, P = 0.002); however, no significant differences were observed between immediate and deferred PCI for TIMI III flow (RR, 0.98, 95%CI, 0.93-1.03, P = 0.453), complete ST-segment resolution (RR, 0.93, 95%CI, 0.75-1.17, P = 0.548), and ejection fraction (WMD, -1.05, 95%CI, -2.58 to 0.49, P = 0.182). The findings of this study suggested that deferred PCI did not yield significant benefits for clinical endpoints. Further large-scale RCTs should |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0234655 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_incontextgauss_ISR_A628361344</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A628361344</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_487104dccf3348f884d7b37e03a3b27f</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A628361344</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-777385cc9556927807c069e24861e12901c2481aca862ab351a9775901b8abfb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk21v0zAQxyMEYmPwDZCIhIRAqMUPie3wAqmqeKg0aRJPby3HubSukriznY3xRfi6XGkZK9qLKS98vvz-d76zL8ueUjKlXNI3az-GwXTTjR9gShgvRFney45pxdlEMMLv37CPskcxrgkpuRLiYXbEmaCFKulx9mvR99A4kyC_gBDHmDfQQgjQ5BsIdkxmAI9e64MfTLjK3ZAgXMCQnB_y1od8Y5LDbcwvXVrlBiXwj45XQxN8D2_zWd5DMhODR76KLua-zYMZGt-7n5jL-iEF33VopuBMFx9nD1pc4Ml-Pcm-fXj_df5pcnr2cTGfnU6sEFWaSCm5Kq2tylJUTCoiLREVsEIJCpRVhFq0qbFGCWZqXlJTSVmiv1ambmt-kj3bxd10Pup9T6NmBa1ERTkrkVjsiMabtd4E12Nh2hun_zh8WGoTkrMd6EJJSorG2pbzQrVKFY2suQTCDa-ZbDHWu322sca2W-xbMN1B0MM_g1vppb_QknNGWIUBXu4DBH8-Qky6d9FC1-2uCc_NCC2E4gTR5_-ht1e3p5YGC3BD6zGv3QbVM8EUF5QXBVLTWyj8Gugd3h20Dv0HglcHgu39wo-0NGOMevHl893Zs--H7Isb7ApMl1bRd-P2NcZDsNiBNvgYA7TXTaZEb-fnbzf0dn70fn5QpnayS6h9Gy2-bAvXUoITVFTYOIqWqOYumW3iuR-HhNLXd5fy3ysuLrU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2419691325</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /></source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Li, Weijun ; He, Wenhua ; Zhou, Yuqing ; Guo, Yanfei</creator><contributor>Lazzeri, Chiara</contributor><creatorcontrib>Li, Weijun ; He, Wenhua ; Zhou, Yuqing ; Guo, Yanfei ; Lazzeri, Chiara</creatorcontrib><description>Inconsistent results exist regarding the treatment effectiveness of immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immediate versus deferred PCI in ACS patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched from their inception up to August 2019. Random-effects models were employed to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weight mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited 3350 patients were selected for inclusion in the final meta-analysis. Four trials included patients with non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS), whereas the remaining six trials included patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). There were no significant differences between immediate versus deferred PCI for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.76, 95%CI, 0.33-1.75, P = 0.513; STEMI patients: RR, 1.24, 95%CI, 0.80-1.92, P = 0.335), myocardial infarction (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.88, 95%CI, 0.27-2.81, P = 0.826; STEMI patients: RR, 0.86, 95%CI, 0.43-1.74, P = 0.678), all-cause mortality (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.85, 95%CI, 0.38-1.88, P = 0.686; STEMI patients: RR, 1.16, 95%CI, 0.82-1.66, P = 0.407), target vessel revascularisation (NSTEACS patients: RR, 1.26, 95%CI, 0.29-5.43, P = 0.756; STEMI patients: RR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.51-1.97, P = 0.988), or major bleeding (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.99, 95%CI, 0.64-1.54, P = 0.972; STEMI patients: RR, 0.90, 95%CI, 0.45-1.77, P = 0.753). Although patients who underwent immediate PCI may experience increased incidences of cardiac death (RR, 1.19, 95%CI, 0.69-2.07, P = 0.525) and no or slow reflow (RR, 1.60, 95%CI, 0.91-2.84, P = 0.105), these increases were not statistically significant. We noted that immediate versus deferred PCI was associated with a reduced incidence of myocardial brush grade 3 (RR, 0.70, 95%CI, 0.56-0.88, P = 0.002); however, no significant differences were observed between immediate and deferred PCI for TIMI III flow (RR, 0.98, 95%CI, 0.93-1.03, P = 0.453), complete ST-segment resolution (RR, 0.93, 95%CI, 0.75-1.17, P = 0.548), and ejection fraction (WMD, -1.05, 95%CI, -2.58 to 0.49, P = 0.182). The findings of this study suggested that deferred PCI did not yield significant benefits for clinical endpoints. Further large-scale RCTs should be conducted to verify the findings of this study.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234655</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32614851</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>SAN FRANCISCO: Public Library Science</publisher><subject>Acute coronary syndrome ; Acute coronary syndromes ; Angioplasty ; Balloon angioplasty ; Bias ; Bleeding ; Blood vessels ; Cardiovascular diseases ; Care and treatment ; Clinical trials ; Comparative analysis ; Confidence intervals ; Data collection ; Disease ; Health risks ; Heart attacks ; Intervention ; Medical ethics ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Methods ; Mortality ; Multidisciplinary Sciences ; Myocardial infarction ; Patients ; Physical Sciences ; Quality ; Randomization ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Risk assessment ; Science & Technology ; Science & Technology - Other Topics ; Science Policy ; Statistical analysis ; Studies ; Testing</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-07, Vol.15 (7), p.e0234655-e0234655, Article 0234655</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2020 Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Li et al 2020 Li et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>1</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000549913100069</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-777385cc9556927807c069e24861e12901c2481aca862ab351a9775901b8abfb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-777385cc9556927807c069e24861e12901c2481aca862ab351a9775901b8abfb3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8103-3300</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332029/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332029/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,2103,2115,2929,23871,27929,27930,28253,53796,53798</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Lazzeri, Chiara</contributor><creatorcontrib>Li, Weijun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Wenhua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Yuqing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Yanfei</creatorcontrib><title>Immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLOS ONE</addtitle><description>Inconsistent results exist regarding the treatment effectiveness of immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immediate versus deferred PCI in ACS patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched from their inception up to August 2019. Random-effects models were employed to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weight mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited 3350 patients were selected for inclusion in the final meta-analysis. Four trials included patients with non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS), whereas the remaining six trials included patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). There were no significant differences between immediate versus deferred PCI for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.76, 95%CI, 0.33-1.75, P = 0.513; STEMI patients: RR, 1.24, 95%CI, 0.80-1.92, P = 0.335), myocardial infarction (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.88, 95%CI, 0.27-2.81, P = 0.826; STEMI patients: RR, 0.86, 95%CI, 0.43-1.74, P = 0.678), all-cause mortality (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.85, 95%CI, 0.38-1.88, P = 0.686; STEMI patients: RR, 1.16, 95%CI, 0.82-1.66, P = 0.407), target vessel revascularisation (NSTEACS patients: RR, 1.26, 95%CI, 0.29-5.43, P = 0.756; STEMI patients: RR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.51-1.97, P = 0.988), or major bleeding (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.99, 95%CI, 0.64-1.54, P = 0.972; STEMI patients: RR, 0.90, 95%CI, 0.45-1.77, P = 0.753). Although patients who underwent immediate PCI may experience increased incidences of cardiac death (RR, 1.19, 95%CI, 0.69-2.07, P = 0.525) and no or slow reflow (RR, 1.60, 95%CI, 0.91-2.84, P = 0.105), these increases were not statistically significant. We noted that immediate versus deferred PCI was associated with a reduced incidence of myocardial brush grade 3 (RR, 0.70, 95%CI, 0.56-0.88, P = 0.002); however, no significant differences were observed between immediate and deferred PCI for TIMI III flow (RR, 0.98, 95%CI, 0.93-1.03, P = 0.453), complete ST-segment resolution (RR, 0.93, 95%CI, 0.75-1.17, P = 0.548), and ejection fraction (WMD, -1.05, 95%CI, -2.58 to 0.49, P = 0.182). The findings of this study suggested that deferred PCI did not yield significant benefits for clinical endpoints. Further large-scale RCTs should be conducted to verify the findings of this study.</description><subject>Acute coronary syndrome</subject><subject>Acute coronary syndromes</subject><subject>Angioplasty</subject><subject>Balloon angioplasty</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Bleeding</subject><subject>Blood vessels</subject><subject>Cardiovascular diseases</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Disease</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Heart attacks</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Multidisciplinary Sciences</subject><subject>Myocardial infarction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Randomization</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Science & Technology</subject><subject>Science & Technology - Other Topics</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Testing</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AOWDO</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk21v0zAQxyMEYmPwDZCIhIRAqMUPie3wAqmqeKg0aRJPby3HubSukriznY3xRfi6XGkZK9qLKS98vvz-d76zL8ueUjKlXNI3az-GwXTTjR9gShgvRFney45pxdlEMMLv37CPskcxrgkpuRLiYXbEmaCFKulx9mvR99A4kyC_gBDHmDfQQgjQ5BsIdkxmAI9e64MfTLjK3ZAgXMCQnB_y1od8Y5LDbcwvXVrlBiXwj45XQxN8D2_zWd5DMhODR76KLua-zYMZGt-7n5jL-iEF33VopuBMFx9nD1pc4Ml-Pcm-fXj_df5pcnr2cTGfnU6sEFWaSCm5Kq2tylJUTCoiLREVsEIJCpRVhFq0qbFGCWZqXlJTSVmiv1ambmt-kj3bxd10Pup9T6NmBa1ERTkrkVjsiMabtd4E12Nh2hun_zh8WGoTkrMd6EJJSorG2pbzQrVKFY2suQTCDa-ZbDHWu322sca2W-xbMN1B0MM_g1vppb_QknNGWIUBXu4DBH8-Qky6d9FC1-2uCc_NCC2E4gTR5_-ht1e3p5YGC3BD6zGv3QbVM8EUF5QXBVLTWyj8Gugd3h20Dv0HglcHgu39wo-0NGOMevHl893Zs--H7Isb7ApMl1bRd-P2NcZDsNiBNvgYA7TXTaZEb-fnbzf0dn70fn5QpnayS6h9Gy2-bAvXUoITVFTYOIqWqOYumW3iuR-HhNLXd5fy3ysuLrU</recordid><startdate>20200702</startdate><enddate>20200702</enddate><creator>Li, Weijun</creator><creator>He, Wenhua</creator><creator>Zhou, Yuqing</creator><creator>Guo, Yanfei</creator><general>Public Library Science</general><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AOWDO</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DTL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8103-3300</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200702</creationdate><title>Immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><author>Li, Weijun ; He, Wenhua ; Zhou, Yuqing ; Guo, Yanfei</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-777385cc9556927807c069e24861e12901c2481aca862ab351a9775901b8abfb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Acute coronary syndrome</topic><topic>Acute coronary syndromes</topic><topic>Angioplasty</topic><topic>Balloon angioplasty</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Bleeding</topic><topic>Blood vessels</topic><topic>Cardiovascular diseases</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Disease</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Heart attacks</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Multidisciplinary Sciences</topic><topic>Myocardial infarction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Randomization</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Science & Technology</topic><topic>Science & Technology - Other Topics</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Testing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Li, Weijun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>He, Wenhua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhou, Yuqing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Yanfei</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Science Citation Index Expanded</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Li, Weijun</au><au>He, Wenhua</au><au>Zhou, Yuqing</au><au>Guo, Yanfei</au><au>Lazzeri, Chiara</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><stitle>PLOS ONE</stitle><date>2020-07-02</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0234655</spage><epage>e0234655</epage><pages>e0234655-e0234655</pages><artnum>0234655</artnum><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Inconsistent results exist regarding the treatment effectiveness of immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immediate versus deferred PCI in ACS patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched from their inception up to August 2019. Random-effects models were employed to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weight mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited 3350 patients were selected for inclusion in the final meta-analysis. Four trials included patients with non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS), whereas the remaining six trials included patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). There were no significant differences between immediate versus deferred PCI for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.76, 95%CI, 0.33-1.75, P = 0.513; STEMI patients: RR, 1.24, 95%CI, 0.80-1.92, P = 0.335), myocardial infarction (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.88, 95%CI, 0.27-2.81, P = 0.826; STEMI patients: RR, 0.86, 95%CI, 0.43-1.74, P = 0.678), all-cause mortality (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.85, 95%CI, 0.38-1.88, P = 0.686; STEMI patients: RR, 1.16, 95%CI, 0.82-1.66, P = 0.407), target vessel revascularisation (NSTEACS patients: RR, 1.26, 95%CI, 0.29-5.43, P = 0.756; STEMI patients: RR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.51-1.97, P = 0.988), or major bleeding (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.99, 95%CI, 0.64-1.54, P = 0.972; STEMI patients: RR, 0.90, 95%CI, 0.45-1.77, P = 0.753). Although patients who underwent immediate PCI may experience increased incidences of cardiac death (RR, 1.19, 95%CI, 0.69-2.07, P = 0.525) and no or slow reflow (RR, 1.60, 95%CI, 0.91-2.84, P = 0.105), these increases were not statistically significant. We noted that immediate versus deferred PCI was associated with a reduced incidence of myocardial brush grade 3 (RR, 0.70, 95%CI, 0.56-0.88, P = 0.002); however, no significant differences were observed between immediate and deferred PCI for TIMI III flow (RR, 0.98, 95%CI, 0.93-1.03, P = 0.453), complete ST-segment resolution (RR, 0.93, 95%CI, 0.75-1.17, P = 0.548), and ejection fraction (WMD, -1.05, 95%CI, -2.58 to 0.49, P = 0.182). The findings of this study suggested that deferred PCI did not yield significant benefits for clinical endpoints. Further large-scale RCTs should be conducted to verify the findings of this study.</abstract><cop>SAN FRANCISCO</cop><pub>Public Library Science</pub><pmid>32614851</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0234655</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8103-3300</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2020-07, Vol.15 (7), p.e0234655-e0234655, Article 0234655 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_gale_incontextgauss_ISR_A628361344 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2020<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Acute coronary syndrome Acute coronary syndromes Angioplasty Balloon angioplasty Bias Bleeding Blood vessels Cardiovascular diseases Care and treatment Clinical trials Comparative analysis Confidence intervals Data collection Disease Health risks Heart attacks Intervention Medical ethics Medicine and Health Sciences Meta-analysis Methods Mortality Multidisciplinary Sciences Myocardial infarction Patients Physical Sciences Quality Randomization Research and Analysis Methods Risk assessment Science & Technology Science & Technology - Other Topics Science Policy Statistical analysis Studies Testing |
| title | Immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with acute coronary syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T16%3A52%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Immediate%20versus%20deferred%20percutaneous%20coronary%20intervention%20for%20patients%20with%20acute%20coronary%20syndrome:%20A%20meta-analysis%20of%20randomized%20controlled%20trials&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Li,%20Weijun&rft.date=2020-07-02&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0234655&rft.epage=e0234655&rft.pages=e0234655-e0234655&rft.artnum=0234655&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0234655&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA628361344%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2419691325&rft_id=info:pmid/32614851&rft_galeid=A628361344&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_487104dccf3348f884d7b37e03a3b27f&rfr_iscdi=true |