Percutaneous Coronary Intervention before or after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Involving 1531 Patients
Rattachement africain : be, it. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: The optimal timing to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not well established. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing PCI before versus after TAVR. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to 5 April 2024 for studies that compared PCI before and after TAVR reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The analyzed outcomes were mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) at follow-up. Results: A total of 3 studies involving 1531 patients (pre-TAVR PCI n = 1240; post-TAVR PCI n = 291) were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. Mortality was higher in the pre-TAVR PCI group (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.19–5.20; p = 0.02). No differences were found between PCI before and after TAVR for the risk of stroke (OR: 3.58; 95% CI: 0.70–18.15; p = 0.12) and MI (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.30–1.42; p = 0.29). Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed in patients with stable CAD undergoing TAVR that PCI after TAVR is associated with lower mortality compared with PCI before TAVR.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention before or after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Involving 1531 Patients
- Date Crossref
- 16/06/2024
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.