| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bajraktari, Gani, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of drug-eluting balloon versus drug-eluting stent treatment of drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis : A meta-analysis of available evidence
- 2016
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-5273 .- 1874-1754. ; 218, s. 126-135
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains an important concern despite the recent advances in the drug-eluting stent (DES) technology. The introduction of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) offers a good solution to such problem.OBJECTIVES: We performed a meta-analysis to assess the clinical efficiency and safety of DEB compared with DES in patients with DES-ISR.METHODS: A systematic search was conducted and all randomized and observational studies which compared DEB with DES in patients with DES-ISR were included. The primary outcome measure-major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-as well as individual events as target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD) and all-cause mortality, were analyzed.RESULTS: Three randomized and 4 observational studies were included with a total of 2052 patients. MACE (relative risk [RR]=1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.46, P=0.99), TLR (RR=1.15 [CI 0.79 to 1.68], P=0.44), ST (RR=0.37[0.10 to 1.34], P=0.13), MI (RR=0.97 [0.49 to 1.91], P=0.93) and CD (RR=0.73 [0.22 to 2.45], P=0.61) were not different between patients treated with DEB and with DES. However, all-cause mortality was lower in patients treated with DEB (RR=0.45 [0.23 to 0.87, P=0.019) and in particular when compared to only first generation DES (RR 0.33 [0.15-0.74], P=0.007). There was no statistical evidence for publication bias.CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis showed that DEB and DES have similar efficacy and safety for the treatment of DES-ISR.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bajraktari, Gani, et al.
(författare)
-
Complete revascularization for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after the COMPLETE trial : a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- 2020
-
Ingår i: IJC Heart & Vasculature. - : Elsevier. - 2352-9067. ; 29
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The recently published COMPLETE trial has demonstrated that patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD), who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of both culprit and non-culprit (vs. culprit-only) lesions had a reduced risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), but not of cardiovascular or total mortality. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of complete revascularization on cardiovascular or total mortality reduction using available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including the COMPLETE trial, in hemodynamically stable STEMI patients with MVD. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases search identified 10 RCTs of 7033 patients with STEMI and MVD which compared complete (n = 3420) vs. only culprit lesion (n = 3613) PCI for a median 27.7 months follow-up. Random effect risk ratios were used to estimate for efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: Complete revascularization reduced the risk of MACE (10.4% vs.16.6%; RR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.74, p < 0.0001), CV mortality (2.87% vs. 3.72%; RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.95, p = 0.02), reinfarction (5.1% vs. 7.1%; RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.86, p = 0.002), urgent revascularization (7.92% vs.17.4%; RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.73, p < 0.001), and CV hospitalization (8.68% vs.11.4%; RR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.44to 0.96, p = 0.03) compared with culprit only revascularization. All-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding events, or contrast induced nephropathy were not affected by the revascularization strategy. Conclusion: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that in patients with STEMI and MVD, complete revascularization is superior to culprit-only PCI in reducing the risk of MACE outcomes, including cardiovascular mortality, without increasing the risk of adverse safety outcomes.
|
|
| 4. |
- Bajraktari, Gani, et al.
(författare)
-
Complete revascularization for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease : a meta-analysis of randomized trials
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Coronary Artery Disease. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0954-6928 .- 1473-5830. ; 29:3, s. 204-215
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Despite the recent findings in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with limited sample sizes and the updates in clinical guidelines, the current available data for the complete revascularization (CR) in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are still contradictory.Aim: The aim of this meta-analysis of the existing RCTs was to assess the efficacy of the CR versus revascularization of infarct-related artery (IRA) only during primary PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (MVD).Patients and methods: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases aiming to find RCTs for patients with STEMI and MVD which compared CR with IRA-only. Random effect risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes.Results: Ten RCTs with 3291 patients were included. The median follow-up duration was 17.5 months. Major adverse cardiac events (RR=0.57; 0.43-0.76; P<0.0001), cardiac mortality (RR=0.52; 0.31-0.87; P=0.014), and repeat revascularization (RR=0.50; 0.30-0.84; P=0.009) were lower in CR compared with IRA-only strategies. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality, recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding events, and contrast-induced nephropathy.Conclusion: For patients with STEMI and MVD undergoing primary PCI, the current evidence suggests that the risk of major adverse cardiac events, repeat revascularization, and cardiac death is reduced by CR. However, the risk for all-cause mortality and PCI-related complications is not different from the isolated culprit lesion-only treatment. Although these findings support the cardiac mortality and safety benefit of CR in stable STEMI, further large trials are required to provide better guidance for optimum management of such patients.
|
|
| 5. |
- Bajraktari, Gani, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Treated with Percutaneous Angioplasty versus Bypass Grafting : A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Medicine. - : MDPI. - 2077-0383. ; 9:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and Aim: Treatment of patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCA) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with unprotected LMCA treated randomly by PCI or CABG. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov database searches identified five randomized trials (RCTs) including 4499 patients with unprotected LMCA comparing PCI (n= 2249) vs. CABG (n= 2250), with a minimum clinical follow-up of five years. Random effect risk ratios were used for efficacy and safety outcomes. The study was registered in PROSPERO. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction or stroke. Results: Compared to CABG, patients assigned to PCI had a similar rate of MACE (risk ratio (RR): 1.13; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.36;p= 0.19), myocardial infarction (RR: 1.48; 95% CI: 0.97 to 2.25;p= 0.07) and stroke (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.23;p= 0.42). Additionally, all-cause mortality (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.28;p= 0.48) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.43;p= 0.31) were not different. However, the risk of any repeat revascularization (RR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.15;p< 0.00001) was higher in patients assigned to PCI. Conclusions: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that the long-term survival and MACE of patients who underwent PCI for unprotected LMCA stenosis were comparable to those receiving CABG, despite a higher rate of repeat revascularization.
|
|
