Literature DB >> 22960383

Percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a review and meta-analysis of 19 clinical studies.

Vijayalakshmi Kunadian1, Andrew Pugh, Azfar G Zaman, Weiliang Qiu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause for left ventricular dysfunction. Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) has not reduced mortality among patients with CAD and left ventricular systolic dysfunction receiving guideline-indicated pharmacological therapy. However, the benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction is not clear.
OBJECTIVES: A meta-analysis of studies utilizing PCI among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤ 40%) was performed to determine in-hospital and long-term (≥ 1 year) mortality.
METHODS: A systematic computerized literature search was performed using the search terms 'poor left ventricle', 'percutaneous coronary intervention', 'revascularization', 'LV dysfunction' and 'heart failure'. Studies of patients undergoing PCI for CAD in the presence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction were included. Studies that did not report long-term mortality data and same-centre studies were excluded.
RESULTS: In total, 4766 patients from 19 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The mean (pooled estimate) age was 65 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 62-68] with 80% (95% CI 75-84%) males. The mean (pooled estimate) ejection fraction was 30% (95% CI 27-33%). The in-hospital mortality using random-effects model (13 studies, total PCI n=2202) was 1.8%, n=39 (95% CI 1.0-2.9%). The long-term mortality (mean pooled estimate 24 months) using the random-effects model (19 studies, total follow-up n=2937) was 15.6%, n=401 (95% CI 11.0-20.7%). Five studies compared PCI versus CABG (n=455 vs. n=502) and provide long-term mortality data (deaths-PCI: n=102 vs. CABG: n=115). The relative risk using the random-effects model (PCI vs. CABG) was 0.98 (95% CI 0.8-1.2, P=0.83).
CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis demonstrates that on the basis of available clinical studies, PCI among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction is feasible with acceptable in-hospital and long-term mortality and yields similar outcomes to CABG. However, neither intervention may improve outcome compared with pharmacological therapy alone.
© 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22960383     DOI: 10.1097/MCA.0b013e3283587804

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Coron Artery Dis        ISSN: 0954-6928            Impact factor:   1.439


  5 in total

1.  Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Coronary Artery Diseases and Moderate Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.

Authors:  Shaoping Wang; Yi Lyu; Shujuan Cheng; Jinghua Liu; Bijan J Borah
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2021-10-15       Impact factor: 2.423

2.  Extent of Ejection Fraction Improvement After Revascularization Associated with Outcomes Among Patients with Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

Authors:  Shaoping Wang; Shujuan Cheng; Yuchao Zhang; Yi Lyu; Jinghua Liu
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2022-09-13

3.  Smaller left ventricular end-systolic diameter and lower ejection fraction at baseline associated with greater ejection fraction improvement after revascularization among patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

Authors:  Shaoping Wang; Yi Lyu; Shujuan Cheng; Yuchao Zhang; Xiaoyan Gu; Ming Gong; Jinghua Liu
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-09-29

Review 4.  Revascularization in Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Does Myocardial Viability Even Matter?

Authors:  Pahul Singh; Nishant Sethi; Navneet Kaur; Hani Kozman
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Cardiol       Date:  2015-06-28

5.  Determinants of outcome in patients with chronic ischemic left ventricular dysfunction undergone percutaneous coronary interventions.

Authors:  Enrico Ammirati; Valentina Guida; Azeem Latib; Francesco Moroni; Francesco Arioli; Isabella Scotti; Ornella E Rimoldi; Antonio Colombo; Paolo G Camici
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 2.298

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.