Hai-Tao Yang1, Wen-Juan Xiu1, Ying-Ying Zheng1, Fen Liu2, Ying Gao3, Xiang Ma1, Yi-Ning Yang1, Xiao-Mei Li1, Yi-Tong Ma1, Xiang Xie4. 1. Heart Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical Univer sity, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China. 2. Laboratory of Coronary Heart Disease, Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Diseases Research, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China. 3. Department of Cadre Ward, First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical Univer sity, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China. 4. Heart Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical Univer sity, Urumqi, Xinjiang, China. xiangxie999@sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early myocardial reperfusion therapy (< 12 h) in patients with acute myocardial infarc-tion (AMI) can significantly improve their prognosis. However, the effect of late reperfusion (> 12 h) remains controversial. In this study, the effects of late reperfusion versus standard drug therapy on the outcomes of patients with AMI were evaluated by systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, Wanfang, and CNKI databases were searched for eligible studies for the present study. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.3 software. Rela-tive risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to compare the outcomes between the two groups. The main outcome measures were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and heart failure. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified including 14,677 patients, of whom 5157 received late reperfusion with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and 9520 received medication therapy (MT). Compared to MT, late PCI was associated with decreased all-cause mortality (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.83; p = 0.002), MACEs (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.89; p < 0.001), and heart failure (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97; p = 0.03), while there was also a trend toward decreased recurrent MI (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.47-1.05; p = 0.08). However, subgroup analysis according to time to PCI showed that the clinical benefit was only from PCI after 12 h but not from 2 to 60 days of the onset of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggested that PCI performed > 12 h but not 2-60 days after AMI is associated with significant improvement in clinical outcomes. However, these results need further rigorously designed large sample size clinical trials to be validated.
BACKGROUND: Early myocardial reperfusion therapy (< 12 h) in patients with acute myocardial infarc-tion (AMI) can significantly improve their prognosis. However, the effect of late reperfusion (> 12 h) remains controversial. In this study, the effects of late reperfusion versus standard drug therapy on the outcomes of patients with AMI were evaluated by systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane, Wanfang, and CNKI databases were searched for eligible studies for the present study. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.3 software. Rela-tive risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to compare the outcomes between the two groups. The main outcome measures were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and heart failure. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified including 14,677 patients, of whom 5157 received late reperfusion with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and 9520 received medication therapy (MT). Compared to MT, late PCI was associated with decreased all-cause mortality (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.83; p = 0.002), MACEs (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.89; p < 0.001), and heart failure (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97; p = 0.03), while there was also a trend toward decreased recurrent MI (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.47-1.05; p = 0.08). However, subgroup analysis according to time to PCI showed that the clinical benefit was only from PCI after 12 h but not from 2 to 60 days of the onset of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggested that PCI performed > 12 h but not 2-60 days after AMI is associated with significant improvement in clinical outcomes. However, these results need further rigorously designed large sample size clinical trials to be validated.
Authors: Albert Schömig; Julinda Mehilli; David Antoniucci; Gjin Ndrepepa; Christina Markwardt; Francesco Di Pede; Stephan G Nekolla; Klaus Schlotterbeck; Helmut Schühlen; Jürgen Pache; Melchior Seyfarth; Stefan Martinoff; Werner Benzer; Claus Schmitt; Josef Dirschinger; Markus Schwaiger; Adnan Kastrati Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-06-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Yaron Elad; William J French; David M Shavelle; Lori S Parsons; Mark J Sada; Nathan R Every Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-03-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Elliott M. Antman; Daniel T. Anbe; Paul Wayne Armstrong; Eric R. Bates; Lee A. Green; Mary Hand; Judith S. Hochman; Harlan M. Krumholz; Frederick G. Kushner; Gervasio A. Lamas; Charles J. Mullany; Joseph P. Ornato; David L. Pearle; Michael A. Sloan; Sidney C. Smith; Joseph S. Alpert; Jeffrey L. Anderson; David P. Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Raymond J. Gibbons; Gabriel Gregoratos; Jonathan L. Halperin; Loren F. Hiratzka; Sharon Ann Hunt; Alice K. Jacobs; Joseph P. Ornato Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-08-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Lourens F H J Robbers; Ronak Delewi; Robin Nijveldt; Alexander Hirsch; Aernout M Beek; Michiel J B Kemme; Yvette van Beurden; Anja M van der Laan; Pieter A van der Vleuten; René A Tio; Felix Zijlstra; Jan J Piek; Albert C van Rossum Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Antonio Abbate; Rossana Bussani; Giuseppe G L Biondi-Zoccai; Raffaele Rossiello; Furio Silvestri; Feliciano Baldi; Luigi M Biasucci; Alfonso Baldi Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-08-27 Impact factor: 29.690