BACKGROUND: Over the past 20 years, percutaneous transluminal balloon coronary angioplasty (PTCA), bare-metal stents (BMS), and drug-eluting stents (DES) succeeded each other as catheter-based treatments for coronary artery disease. We undertook a systematic overview of randomised trials comparing these interventions with each other and with medical therapy in patients with non-acute coronary artery disease. METHODS: We searched Medline for trials contrasting at least two of the four interventions (PTCA, BMS, DES, and medical therapy). Eligible outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, target lesion or vessel revascularisation, and any revascularisation. Random effects meta-analyses summarised head-to-head (direct) comparisons, and network meta-analyses integrated direct and indirect evidence. FINDINGS: 61 eligible trials (25 388 patients) investigated four of six possible comparisons between the four interventions; no trials directly compared DES with medical therapy or PTCA. In all direct or indirect comparisons, succeeding advancements in percutaneous coronary intervention did not produce detectable improvements in deaths or myocardial infarction. The risk ratio (RR) for indirect comparisons between DES and medical therapy was 0.96 (95% CI 0.60-1.52) for death and 1.15 (0.73-1.82) for myocardial infarction. By contrast, we recorded sequential significant reductions in target lesion or vessel revascularisation with BMS compared with PTCA (RR 0.68 [0-60.0.77]) and with DES compared with BMS (0.44 [0.35-0.56]). The RR for the indirect comparison between DES and PTCA for target lesion or vessel revascularisation was 0.30 (0.17-0.51). INTERPRETATION: Sequential innovations in the catheter-based treatment of non-acute coronary artery disease showed no evidence of an effect on death or myocardial infarction when compared with medical therapy. These results lend support to present recommendations to optimise medical therapy as an initial management strategy in patients with this disease.
BACKGROUND: Over the past 20 years, percutaneous transluminal balloon coronary angioplasty (PTCA), bare-metal stents (BMS), and drug-eluting stents (DES) succeeded each other as catheter-based treatments for coronary artery disease. We undertook a systematic overview of randomised trials comparing these interventions with each other and with medical therapy in patients with non-acute coronary artery disease. METHODS: We searched Medline for trials contrasting at least two of the four interventions (PTCA, BMS, DES, and medical therapy). Eligible outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, target lesion or vessel revascularisation, and any revascularisation. Random effects meta-analyses summarised head-to-head (direct) comparisons, and network meta-analyses integrated direct and indirect evidence. FINDINGS: 61 eligible trials (25 388 patients) investigated four of six possible comparisons between the four interventions; no trials directly compared DES with medical therapy or PTCA. In all direct or indirect comparisons, succeeding advancements in percutaneous coronary intervention did not produce detectable improvements in deaths or myocardial infarction. The risk ratio (RR) for indirect comparisons between DES and medical therapy was 0.96 (95% CI 0.60-1.52) for death and 1.15 (0.73-1.82) for myocardial infarction. By contrast, we recorded sequential significant reductions in target lesion or vessel revascularisation with BMS compared with PTCA (RR 0.68 [0-60.0.77]) and with DES compared with BMS (0.44 [0.35-0.56]). The RR for the indirect comparison between DES and PTCA for target lesion or vessel revascularisation was 0.30 (0.17-0.51). INTERPRETATION: Sequential innovations in the catheter-based treatment of non-acute coronary artery disease showed no evidence of an effect on death or myocardial infarction when compared with medical therapy. These results lend support to present recommendations to optimise medical therapy as an initial management strategy in patients with this disease.
Authors: Whady Hueb; Neuza Helena Lopes; Bernard J Gersh; Paulo Soares; Luiz A C Machado; Fabio B Jatene; Sergio A Oliveira; Jose A F Ramires Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-03-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David R Holmes; Bernard J Gersh; Patrick Whitlow; Spencer B King; James T Dove Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Christoph Stettler; Simon Wandel; Sabin Allemann; Adnan Kastrati; Marie Claude Morice; Albert Schömig; Matthias E Pfisterer; Gregg W Stone; Martin B Leon; José Suarez de Lezo; Jean-Jacques Goy; Seung-Jung Park; Manel Sabaté; Maarten J Suttorp; Henning Kelbaek; Christian Spaulding; Maurizio Menichelli; Paul Vermeersch; Maurits T Dirksen; Pavel Cervinka; Anna Sonia Petronio; Alain J Nordmann; Peter Diem; Bernhard Meier; Marcel Zwahlen; Stephan Reichenbach; Sven Trelle; Stephan Windecker; Peter Jüni Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Wayne Rosamond; Katherine Flegal; Karen Furie; Alan Go; Kurt Greenlund; Nancy Haase; Susan M Hailpern; Michael Ho; Virginia Howard; Brett Kissela; Bret Kissela; Steven Kittner; Donald Lloyd-Jones; Mary McDermott; James Meigs; Claudia Moy; Graham Nichol; Christopher O'Donnell; Veronique Roger; Paul Sorlie; Julia Steinberger; Thomas Thom; Matt Wilson; Yuling Hong Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Peter Cram; John A House; John C Messenger; Robert N Piana; Phillip A Horwitz; John A Spertus Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Jing Zhang; Bradley P Carlin; James D Neaton; Guoxing G Soon; Lei Nie; Robert Kane; Beth A Virnig; Haitao Chu Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Gregg W Stone; Judith S Hochman; David O Williams; William E Boden; T Bruce Ferguson; Robert A Harrington; David J Maron Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 24.094