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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Current problems in cardiology 2023-04, Vol.48 (4), p.101555-101555, Article 101555 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
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 |