Assessment of Repeat Revascularization in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials as a Surrogate for Mortality: A Meta-Regression Analysis

The association of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with mortality is uncertain. To assess the association of repeat revascularization after PCI with mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We identified randomized controlled trials comparing...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Current problems in cardiology 2023-04, Vol.48 (4), p.101555-101555, Article 101555
Hauptverfasser: Khan, Safi U., Lone, Ahmad N., Akbar, Usman Ali, Arshad, Hassaan B., Arshad, Adeel, Arora, Shilpkumar, Kaluski, Edo, Aoun, Joe, Goel, Sachin S., Shah, Alpesh R., Kleiman, Neal S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 101555
container_issue 4
container_start_page 101555
container_title Current problems in cardiology
container_volume 48
creator Khan, Safi U.
Lone, Ahmad N.
Akbar, Usman Ali
Arshad, Hassaan B.
Arshad, Adeel
Arora, Shilpkumar
Kaluski, Edo
Aoun, Joe
Goel, Sachin S.
Shah, Alpesh R.
Kleiman, Neal S.
description The association of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with mortality is uncertain. To assess the association of repeat revascularization after PCI with mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We identified randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or optimal medical therapy (OMT) using electronic databases through January 1, 2022. We performed a random-effects meta-regression between repeat revascularization rates after PCI (absolute risk difference [%] between PCI and CABG or OMT) with the relative risks (RR) of mortality. We assessed surrogacy of repeat revascularization for mortality using the coefficient of determination (R2), with threshold of 0.80. In 33 trials (21,735 patients), at median follow-up of 4 (2-7) years, repeat revascularization was higher after PCI than CABG [RR: 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-3.03)], but lower vs OMT [RR: 0.64 (0.46-0.88)]. Overall, meta-regression showed that repeat revascularization rates after PCI had no significant association with all-cause mortality [RR: 1.01 (0.99-1.02); R2=0.10) or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 1.01 (CI: 0.99-1.03); R2=0.09]. In PCI vs CABG (R2=0.0) or PCI vs OMT trials (R2=0.28), repeat revascularization did not meet the threshold for surrogacy for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (R2=0.0). We observed concordant results for subgroup analyses (enrollment time, follow-up, sample size, risk of bias, stent types, and coronary artery disease), and multivariable analysis adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, risk of bias, MI, and follow-up duration. In summary, this meta-regression did not establish repeat revascularization after PCI as a surrogate for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101555
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2755800434</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0146280622004522</els_id><sourcerecordid>2755800434</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-7bf787f643567f2b947c66091041ac1c6f38624d4beff0202d87e80e089f90013</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxi0EokvhFcBHLtnaTuIk3FarApVagZZytrzOuPIqsZexs9L2cXhSHKXtFcnSjKzfN_8-Qj5xtuaMy6vD2hyNxt6FYS2YEPNvXdevyIrXZV1I0bLXZMV4JYucygvyLsYDY1x0XL4lF6WsRSfKckX-bmKEGEfwiQZLd3AEnXI46WimQaN71MkFT52nPwHNlLSHMEW6DRi8xjO98QnwlOUztdO-D6N7hD4DPmEYhpzeo9NDpDo_-mtCDA86AbUB6V3ApAeXzl_oht5B0sUOHjDPMxfbeD2co4vvyRub9fDhKV6S31-v77ffi9sf3262m9vClLxJRbO3TdtYWZW1bKzYd1VjpGQdZxXXhhtpy1aKqq_2YC3LR-vbBloGrO1sl09TXpLPS90jhj8TxKRGFw0Mw7KyEk1dt4xVZZXRZkENhhgRrDqiG_M5FGdqNkgd1ItBajZILQZl5cenJtN-hP5F9-xIBjYLAHnVkwNU0TjwBnqHYJLqg_tvk3_A46jo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2755800434</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessment of Repeat Revascularization in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials as a Surrogate for Mortality: A Meta-Regression Analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Khan, Safi U. ; Lone, Ahmad N. ; Akbar, Usman Ali ; Arshad, Hassaan B. ; Arshad, Adeel ; Arora, Shilpkumar ; Kaluski, Edo ; Aoun, Joe ; Goel, Sachin S. ; Shah, Alpesh R. ; Kleiman, Neal S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Khan, Safi U. ; Lone, Ahmad N. ; Akbar, Usman Ali ; Arshad, Hassaan B. ; Arshad, Adeel ; Arora, Shilpkumar ; Kaluski, Edo ; Aoun, Joe ; Goel, Sachin S. ; Shah, Alpesh R. ; Kleiman, Neal S.</creatorcontrib><description>The association of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with mortality is uncertain. To assess the association of repeat revascularization after PCI with mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We identified randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or optimal medical therapy (OMT) using electronic databases through January 1, 2022. We performed a random-effects meta-regression between repeat revascularization rates after PCI (absolute risk difference [%] between PCI and CABG or OMT) with the relative risks (RR) of mortality. We assessed surrogacy of repeat revascularization for mortality using the coefficient of determination (R2), with threshold of 0.80. In 33 trials (21,735 patients), at median follow-up of 4 (2-7) years, repeat revascularization was higher after PCI than CABG [RR: 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-3.03)], but lower vs OMT [RR: 0.64 (0.46-0.88)]. Overall, meta-regression showed that repeat revascularization rates after PCI had no significant association with all-cause mortality [RR: 1.01 (0.99-1.02); R2=0.10) or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 1.01 (CI: 0.99-1.03); R2=0.09]. In PCI vs CABG (R2=0.0) or PCI vs OMT trials (R2=0.28), repeat revascularization did not meet the threshold for surrogacy for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (R2=0.0). We observed concordant results for subgroup analyses (enrollment time, follow-up, sample size, risk of bias, stent types, and coronary artery disease), and multivariable analysis adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, risk of bias, MI, and follow-up duration. In summary, this meta-regression did not establish repeat revascularization after PCI as a surrogate for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0146-2806</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-6280</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101555</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36529233</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Coronary Artery Bypass - methods ; Coronary Artery Disease - therapy ; Humans ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Regression Analysis ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Current problems in cardiology, 2023-04, Vol.48 (4), p.101555-101555, Article 101555</ispartof><rights>2022</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-7bf787f643567f2b947c66091041ac1c6f38624d4beff0202d87e80e089f90013</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1559-6911</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280622004522$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36529233$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Khan, Safi U.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lone, Ahmad N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akbar, Usman Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arshad, Hassaan B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arshad, Adeel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arora, Shilpkumar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaluski, Edo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aoun, Joe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goel, Sachin S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Alpesh R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kleiman, Neal S.</creatorcontrib><title>Assessment of Repeat Revascularization in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials as a Surrogate for Mortality: A Meta-Regression Analysis</title><title>Current problems in cardiology</title><addtitle>Curr Probl Cardiol</addtitle><description>The association of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with mortality is uncertain. To assess the association of repeat revascularization after PCI with mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We identified randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or optimal medical therapy (OMT) using electronic databases through January 1, 2022. We performed a random-effects meta-regression between repeat revascularization rates after PCI (absolute risk difference [%] between PCI and CABG or OMT) with the relative risks (RR) of mortality. We assessed surrogacy of repeat revascularization for mortality using the coefficient of determination (R2), with threshold of 0.80. In 33 trials (21,735 patients), at median follow-up of 4 (2-7) years, repeat revascularization was higher after PCI than CABG [RR: 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-3.03)], but lower vs OMT [RR: 0.64 (0.46-0.88)]. Overall, meta-regression showed that repeat revascularization rates after PCI had no significant association with all-cause mortality [RR: 1.01 (0.99-1.02); R2=0.10) or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 1.01 (CI: 0.99-1.03); R2=0.09]. In PCI vs CABG (R2=0.0) or PCI vs OMT trials (R2=0.28), repeat revascularization did not meet the threshold for surrogacy for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (R2=0.0). We observed concordant results for subgroup analyses (enrollment time, follow-up, sample size, risk of bias, stent types, and coronary artery disease), and multivariable analysis adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, risk of bias, MI, and follow-up duration. In summary, this meta-regression did not establish repeat revascularization after PCI as a surrogate for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.</description><subject>Coronary Artery Bypass - methods</subject><subject>Coronary Artery Disease - therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0146-2806</issn><issn>1535-6280</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc9u1DAQxi0EokvhFcBHLtnaTuIk3FarApVagZZytrzOuPIqsZexs9L2cXhSHKXtFcnSjKzfN_8-Qj5xtuaMy6vD2hyNxt6FYS2YEPNvXdevyIrXZV1I0bLXZMV4JYucygvyLsYDY1x0XL4lF6WsRSfKckX-bmKEGEfwiQZLd3AEnXI46WimQaN71MkFT52nPwHNlLSHMEW6DRi8xjO98QnwlOUztdO-D6N7hD4DPmEYhpzeo9NDpDo_-mtCDA86AbUB6V3ApAeXzl_oht5B0sUOHjDPMxfbeD2co4vvyRub9fDhKV6S31-v77ffi9sf3262m9vClLxJRbO3TdtYWZW1bKzYd1VjpGQdZxXXhhtpy1aKqq_2YC3LR-vbBloGrO1sl09TXpLPS90jhj8TxKRGFw0Mw7KyEk1dt4xVZZXRZkENhhgRrDqiG_M5FGdqNkgd1ItBajZILQZl5cenJtN-hP5F9-xIBjYLAHnVkwNU0TjwBnqHYJLqg_tvk3_A46jo</recordid><startdate>202304</startdate><enddate>202304</enddate><creator>Khan, Safi U.</creator><creator>Lone, Ahmad N.</creator><creator>Akbar, Usman Ali</creator><creator>Arshad, Hassaan B.</creator><creator>Arshad, Adeel</creator><creator>Arora, Shilpkumar</creator><creator>Kaluski, Edo</creator><creator>Aoun, Joe</creator><creator>Goel, Sachin S.</creator><creator>Shah, Alpesh R.</creator><creator>Kleiman, Neal S.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1559-6911</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202304</creationdate><title>Assessment of Repeat Revascularization in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials as a Surrogate for Mortality: A Meta-Regression Analysis</title><author>Khan, Safi U. ; Lone, Ahmad N. ; Akbar, Usman Ali ; Arshad, Hassaan B. ; Arshad, Adeel ; Arora, Shilpkumar ; Kaluski, Edo ; Aoun, Joe ; Goel, Sachin S. ; Shah, Alpesh R. ; Kleiman, Neal S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-7bf787f643567f2b947c66091041ac1c6f38624d4beff0202d87e80e089f90013</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Coronary Artery Bypass - methods</topic><topic>Coronary Artery Disease - therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Khan, Safi U.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lone, Ahmad N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akbar, Usman Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arshad, Hassaan B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arshad, Adeel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arora, Shilpkumar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaluski, Edo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aoun, Joe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goel, Sachin S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Alpesh R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kleiman, Neal S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Current problems in cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Khan, Safi U.</au><au>Lone, Ahmad N.</au><au>Akbar, Usman Ali</au><au>Arshad, Hassaan B.</au><au>Arshad, Adeel</au><au>Arora, Shilpkumar</au><au>Kaluski, Edo</au><au>Aoun, Joe</au><au>Goel, Sachin S.</au><au>Shah, Alpesh R.</au><au>Kleiman, Neal S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessment of Repeat Revascularization in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials as a Surrogate for Mortality: A Meta-Regression Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Current problems in cardiology</jtitle><addtitle>Curr Probl Cardiol</addtitle><date>2023-04</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>101555</spage><epage>101555</epage><pages>101555-101555</pages><artnum>101555</artnum><issn>0146-2806</issn><eissn>1535-6280</eissn><abstract>The association of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with mortality is uncertain. To assess the association of repeat revascularization after PCI with mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We identified randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or optimal medical therapy (OMT) using electronic databases through January 1, 2022. We performed a random-effects meta-regression between repeat revascularization rates after PCI (absolute risk difference [%] between PCI and CABG or OMT) with the relative risks (RR) of mortality. We assessed surrogacy of repeat revascularization for mortality using the coefficient of determination (R2), with threshold of 0.80. In 33 trials (21,735 patients), at median follow-up of 4 (2-7) years, repeat revascularization was higher after PCI than CABG [RR: 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-3.03)], but lower vs OMT [RR: 0.64 (0.46-0.88)]. Overall, meta-regression showed that repeat revascularization rates after PCI had no significant association with all-cause mortality [RR: 1.01 (0.99-1.02); R2=0.10) or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 1.01 (CI: 0.99-1.03); R2=0.09]. In PCI vs CABG (R2=0.0) or PCI vs OMT trials (R2=0.28), repeat revascularization did not meet the threshold for surrogacy for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality (R2=0.0). We observed concordant results for subgroup analyses (enrollment time, follow-up, sample size, risk of bias, stent types, and coronary artery disease), and multivariable analysis adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, risk of bias, MI, and follow-up duration. In summary, this meta-regression did not establish repeat revascularization after PCI as a surrogate for all-cause or cardiovascular mortality.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>36529233</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101555</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1559-6911</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0146-2806
ispartof Current problems in cardiology, 2023-04, Vol.48 (4), p.101555-101555, Article 101555
issn 0146-2806
1535-6280
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2755800434
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Coronary Artery Bypass - methods
Coronary Artery Disease - therapy
Humans
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Regression Analysis
Treatment Outcome
title Assessment of Repeat Revascularization in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials as a Surrogate for Mortality: A Meta-Regression Analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T21%3A32%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment%20of%20Repeat%20Revascularization%20in%20Percutaneous%20Coronary%20Intervention%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trials%20as%20a%20Surrogate%20for%20Mortality:%20A%20Meta-Regression%20Analysis&rft.jtitle=Current%20problems%20in%20cardiology&rft.au=Khan,%20Safi%20U.&rft.date=2023-04&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=101555&rft.epage=101555&rft.pages=101555-101555&rft.artnum=101555&rft.issn=0146-2806&rft.eissn=1535-6280&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101555&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2755800434%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2755800434&rft_id=info:pmid/36529233&rft_els_id=S0146280622004522&rfr_iscdi=true