ABSTRACT
Background: The number of models developed for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasing, but the performance of these models is unknown. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate, describe, and compare existing models and analyze the factors that can predict outcomes. Methods: We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 during the execution of this review. Databases including Embase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and SINOMED were comprehensively searched for identifying studies published from 1977 to 19 May 2023. Model development studies specifically designed for assessing the occurrence of MACE after PCI with or without external validation were included. Bias and transparency were evaluated by the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariate Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. The key findings were narratively summarized and presented in tables. Results: A total of 5,234 articles were retrieved, and after thorough screening, 23 studies that met the predefined inclusion criteria were ultimately included. The models were mainly constructed using data from individuals diagnosed with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The discrimination of the models, as measured by the area under the curve (AUC) or C-index, varied between 0.638 and 0.96. The commonly used predictor variables include LVEF, age, Killip classification, diabetes, and various others. All models were determined to have a high risk of bias, and their adherence to the TRIPOD items was reported to be over 60%. Conclusion: The existing models show some predictive ability, but all have a high risk of bias due to methodological shortcomings. This suggests that investigators should follow guidelines to develop high-quality models for better clinical service and dissemination. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=400835, Identifier CRD42023400835.
ABSTRACT
Background: While current concerns about bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) are centered on late or very late scaffold thrombosis, less attention had been paid to short- and mid-term clinical outcomes. This review aimed to compare the short- and mid-term outcomes between BRS and drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared BRS vs. DES was conducted by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP databases from inception until 19 April 2022 (language limited to English or Chinese). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) within 12 months, defined as a composite of target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), and cardiac death. The secondary outcomes were in-stent diameter stenosis (DS%) provided by intraluminal imaging. Results: A total of 13 studies were eligible and were included in this review (N = 9,702 patients). The follow-up duration ranged from 6 months to 1 year. A significantly higher rate of TLF [RR, 1.22, 95% CI (1.03, 1.44)] driven by the higher rate of TVMI [RR, 1.39, 95% CI (1.09, 1.76)] was observed in the BRS group than in the DES group. The risk of TLR and cardiac death was similar between the groups. Also, compared with the DES group, the BRS group had a significantly higher in-stent DS% within 1 year [MD = 5.23, 95%CI (3.43, 7.04); I2 = 97%; p < 0.00001]. Conclusion: Bioresorbable scaffolds were associated with an increased risk of target lesion failure within 1 year as compared with DES, driven by the increased rates of target vessel myocardial infarction. Also, the in-stent DS% seemed to be higher with BRS. Therefore, BRS was inferior to DES in terms of target lesion outcomes at short- or mid-term follow-up. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=327966, PROSPERO (CRD42022327966).
