Subject(s)
Atrioventricular Block , Humans , Atrioventricular Block/diagnosis , Atrioventricular Block/etiology , Atrioventricular Block/physiopathology , Atrioventricular Block/therapy , Myocardial Infarction/complications , Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , Myocardial Infarction/surgery , Myocardial Revascularization/methods , Electrocardiography , Coronary AngiographyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) provide intra-procedural guidance in optimizing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and have been shown to improve clinical outcomes in stent implantation. However, current data on the benefit of IVUS during PCI in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients is mixed. We performed meta-analysis pooling available data assessing IVUS-guided versus angiography-guided PCI in STEMI patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search on PubMed and Embase for studies comparing IVUS versus angiography guided PCI in STEMI. Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for outcomes of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis (ST) and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies including 336,649 individuals presenting with STEMI were included for the meta-analysis. Follow-up ranged from 11 to 60 months. We found significant association between IVUS-guided PCI with lower risk for MACE (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.90) compared with angiography-guided PCI. We also found significant association between IVUS-guided PCI with lower risk for death, MI, TVR and in-hospital mortality but not ST. CONCLUSION: In our meta-analysis, IVUS-guided compared with angiography-guided PCI was associated with improved long-term and short-term clinical outcomes in STEMI patients.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Summarize selected late-breaking science on cardiovascular (CV) disease prevention presented at the 2022 scientific session of the American Heart Association (AHA). RECENT FINDINGS: The PROMINENT trial compared pemafibrate to a placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)<40 mg/dL who were already on guideline-directed statin therapy. The RESPECT-EPA trial compared purified eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and statin therapy to statin therapy alone for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD). SPORT compared the efficacy of low-dose statin therapy with a placebo and six commonly used dietary supplements on lipid and inflammatory markers. Data from long-term follow-up of the FOURIER-OLE study was presented to evaluate the efficacy of very low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. Patient-level meta-analyses evaluated the association of statin therapy with new-onset DM and worse glycemic control. PROMPT-LIPID evaluated if automated electronic alerts to physicians with guideline-based recommendations improved the management of hyperlipidemia in patients at very high risk. NOTIFY-1 trial evaluated if notifying physicians and patients about coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores in non-ECG gated computed tomography scans led to increased prescription of statin therapy for primary ASCVD prevention. The DCP trial compared hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone for blood pressure control and CV outcomes in hypertension. The CRHCP study compared the effectiveness of a village doctor for hypertension management and CV outcomes in rural areas of China. The QUARTET USA trial compared the effectiveness and safety of 4 antihypertensive medications in ultra-low doses with angiotensin-receptor blocker monotherapy. The late-breaking science presented at the 2022 scientific session of the AHA paves the way for future pragmatic trials and provides meaningful information to guide management strategies in cardiovascular disease prevention.
