-
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Feb 2022Present work was aimed to gather accessible evidence on the eradication rates and related postoperative complications of antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate (CS) as an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Present work was aimed to gather accessible evidence on the eradication rates and related postoperative complications of antibiotic-loaded calcium sulfate (CS) as an implant in the treatment of chronic osteomyelitis (COM).
METHODS
Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Ovid and Cochrane library were searched from their dates of initiation until November 2021. Two independent authors scrutinized the relevant studies based on the effectiveness of radical debridement combined with antibiotic-loaded CS for COM; data extraction and quality assessment of the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria were also performed by the authors. In addition, clinical efficacy mainly depended on the evaluation of eradication rates and complications, and all the extracted data are pooled and analyzed by STATA 16.0.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies with 917 patients (920 locations) were recruited, with an overall eradication rate of 92%. Moreover, the overall reoperation rate, overall refracture rate, overall delayed wound healing rate, and the rate of aseptic wound leakage were 9.0%, 2.0%, 20.0%, and 12.0%, respectively. Moreover, the choice of tobramycin-loaded CS or vancomycin combined with gentamicin-loaded CS did not affect the eradication rate, and the incidence of postoperative complications in COM patients (all [Formula: see text]). The general quality of the included studies was fair.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis indicated that the overall eradication rate of COM treated with antibiotic-loaded CS was 92%. Delayed healing is the most common postoperative complication. The choice of tobramycin-loaded CS or vancomycin combined with gentamicin-loaded CS did not affect the eradication rate and the incidence of postoperative complications in COM patients.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Calcium Sulfate; Gentamicins; Humans; Incidence; Osteomyelitis; Postoperative Complications; Tobramycin; Vancomycin
PubMed: 35183215
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-02980-2 -
BMC Oral Health Dec 2021Microbial biofilm accumulation is the main cause of peri-implantitis. The majority of surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols suggests adjunctive use of systemic...
BACKGROUND
Microbial biofilm accumulation is the main cause of peri-implantitis. The majority of surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols suggests adjunctive use of systemic antibiotics to target specific putative bacteria. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the adjunctive use of systemically administered antibiotics in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis by reviewing previously published systematic reviews and primary studies.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in four electronic databases (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and systematic reviews reporting surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with and without adjunctive systemically administered antibiotic therapy. The included systematic reviews and primary studies were qualitatively assessed using AMSTAR and GRADE, respectively. No restrictions were set for date of publication, journal, or language.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 681 papers. Only seven systematic reviews and two primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Four out of seven included systematic reviews concluded that no evidence exists for use of systemic antibiotics to improve the clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. One review did not estimate the level of evidence, one did not clearly state any beneficial effect, whereas one reported a limited adjunctive effect. Further, the two included primary studies did not show a long-term significant benefit of adjunctive use of systemically administrated antibiotics. However, one study reported a short-term adjunctive effect in patients with modified surface implants. Due to heterogeneity in study design, low number of included primary studies, and grade of bias, no meta-analysis was performed.
CONCLUSION
The use of systemically administered antibiotics as an adjunct to surgical interventions of peri-implantitis cannot be justified as a part of a standard treatment protocol. A pervasive problem is the lack of uniform diagnosis criteria for peri-implantitis, deficient information about patient characteristics, absence of high quality long-term randomised controlled trials, and authors' declaration on conflict of interest.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Case-Control Studies; Dental Implants; Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 34961495
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-02020-1 -
Addiction Science & Clinical Practice Oct 2021Methamphetamine/amphetamine use has sharply increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is therefore important to understand whether and how use of these... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Methamphetamine/amphetamine use has sharply increased among people with opioid use disorder (OUD). It is therefore important to understand whether and how use of these substances may impact receipt of, and outcomes associated with, medications for OUD (MOUD). This systematic review identified studies that examined associations between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and 3 classes of outcomes: (1) receipt of MOUD, (2) retention in MOUD, and (3) opioid abstinence during MOUD.
METHODS
We searched 3 databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete) from 1/1/2000 to 7/28/2020 using key words and subject headings, and hand-searched reference lists of included articles. English-language studies of people with documented OUD/opioid use that reported a quantitative association between methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder and an outcome of interest were included. Study data were extracted using a standardized template, and risk of bias was assessed for each study. Screening, inclusion, data extraction and bias assessment were conducted independently by 2 authors. Study characteristics and findings were summarized for each class of outcomes.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Studies generally found that methamphetamine/amphetamine use or use disorder was negatively associated with receiving methadone and buprenorphine; 2 studies suggested positive associations with receiving naltrexone. Studies generally found negative associations with retention; most studies finding no association had small samples, and these studies tended to examine shorter retention timeframes and describe provision of adjunctive services to address substance use. Studies generally found negative associations with opioid abstinence during treatment among patients receiving methadone or sustained-release naltrexone implants, though observed associations may have been confounded by other polysubstance use. Most studies examining opioid abstinence during other types of MOUD treatment had small samples.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, existing research suggests people who use methamphetamine/amphetamines may have lower receipt of MOUD, retention in MOUD, and opioid abstinence during MOUD. Future research should examine how specific policies and treatment models impact MOUD outcomes for these patients, and seek to understand the perspectives of MOUD providers and people who use both opioids and methamphetamine/amphetamines. Efforts to improve MOUD care and overdose prevention strategies are needed for this population.
Topics: Buprenorphine; Humans; Methadone; Methamphetamine; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 34635170
DOI: 10.1186/s13722-021-00266-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Diabetic macular edema (DME) is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries with thickening of central retina, and is an important cause of poor central... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diabetic macular edema (DME) is secondary to leakage from diseased retinal capillaries with thickening of central retina, and is an important cause of poor central visual acuity in people with diabetic retinopathy. Intravitreal steroids have been used to reduce retinal thickness and improve vision in people with DME.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal steroid therapy compared with other treatments for DME.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase on 15 May, 2019. We also searched reference lists, Science Citation Index, conference proceedings, and relevant trial registers. We conducted a top up search on 21 October, 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of intravitreal steroids as monotherapy against any other intervention (e.g. observation, laser photocoagulation, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (antiVEGF) for DME.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials (4348 participants, 4505 eyes). These trials compared intravitreal steroid therapies versus other treatments, including intravitreal antiVEGF therapy, laser photocoagulation, and sham injection. Most trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias. One trial (701 eyes ) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with sham. We found moderate-certainty evidence that dexamethasone leads to slightly more improvement of visual acuity than sham at 12 months (mean difference [MD] -0.08 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.12 to -0.05 logMAR). Regarding improvement of three or more lines of visual acuity, there was moderate-certainty evidence in favor of dexamethasone at 12 months, but the CI covered the null value (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.12). Regarding adverse events, dexamethasone increased by about four times the risk of cataract progression and the risk of using intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering medications compared to sham (RR 3.89, 95% CI 2.75 to 5.50 and RR 4.54, 95% CI 3.19 to 6.46, respectively; moderate-certainty evidence); about 4 in 10 participants treated with dexamethasone needed IOP-lowering medications. Two trials (451 eyes) compared intravitreal dexamethasone implant 0.7mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab and ranibizumab). There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly less with dexamethasone compared with antiVEGF at 12 months (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.09 logMAR; 2 trials; 451 participants/eyes; I = 0%). The RR of gain of three or more lines of visual acuity was inconsistent between trials, with one trial finding no evidence of a difference between dexamethasone and bevacizumab at 12 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.40; 1 trial; 88 eyes), and the other, larger trial finding the chances of vision gain were half with dexamethasone compared with ranibizumab (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; 1 trial; 432 participants). The certainty of evidence was low. Cataract progression and the need for IOP-lowering medications increased more than 4 times with dexamethasone implant compared to antiVEGF (moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (560 eyes) compared intravitreal fluocinolone implant 0.19mg with sham. There was moderate-certainty evidence that visual acuity improved slightly more with fluocinolone at 12 months (MD -0.04 logMAR, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.01 logMAR). There was moderate-certainty evidence that an improvement in visual acuity of three or more lines was more common with fluocinolone than with sham at 12 months (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.78). Fluocinolone also increased the risk of cataract progression (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.97; participants = 335; moderate-certainty evidence), which occurred in about 8 in 10 participants, and the use of IOP-lowering medications (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.98; participants = 558; moderate-certainty evidence), which were needed in 2 to 3 out of 10 participants. One small trial with 43 participants (69 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4 mg with sham. There may be a benefit in visual acuity at 24 months (MD -0.11 logMAR, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.03 logMAR), but the certainty of evidence is low. Differences in adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Two trials (615 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with laser photocoagulation and reached discordant results. The smaller trial (31 eyes followed up to 9 months) found more visual acuity improvement with triamcinolone (MD -0.18 logMAR, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07 logMAR), but a larger, multicenter trial (584 eyes, 12-month follow-up) found no evidence of a difference regarding change in visual acuity (MD 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07 logMAR) or gain of three or more lines of visual acuity (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.30) (overall low-certainty evidence). Cataract progression was about three times more likely (RR 2.68, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.24; moderate-certainty evidence) and the use of IOP-lowering medications was about four times more likely (RR 3.92, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.96; participants = 627; studies = 2; I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) with triamcinolone. About 1 in 3 participants needed IOP-lowering medication. One small trial (30 eyes) compared intravitreal triamcinolone acetonide injection 4mg with intravitreal antiVEGF (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). Visual acuity may be worse with triamcinolone at 12 months (MD 0.18 logMAR, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.26 logMAR); the certainty of evidence is low. Adverse effects were poorly reported in this trial. Four trials reported data on pseudophakic participants, for whom cataract is not a concern. These trials found no decrease in visual acuity in the second treatment year due to cataract progression.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Intravitreal steroids may improve vision in people with DME compared to sham or control. Effects were small, about one line of vision or less in most comparisons. More evidence is available for dexamethasone or fluocinolone implants when compared to sham, and the evidence is limited and inconsistent for the comparison of dexamethasone with antiVEGF treatment. Any benefits should be weighed against IOP elevation, the use of IOP-lowering medication and, in phakic patients, the progression of cataract. The need for glaucoma surgery is also increased, but remains rare.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bevacizumab; Bias; Confidence Intervals; Dexamethasone; Diabetic Retinopathy; Drug Implants; Fluocinolone Acetonide; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Steroids; Triamcinolone; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity; Vitreous Body
PubMed: 33206392
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005656.pub3 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2024The aim of this study was to better understand the efficacy of various drugs, such as glucocorticoids and anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), in the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to better understand the efficacy of various drugs, such as glucocorticoids and anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), in the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME), and to evaluate various clinical treatment regimens consisting of different therapeutic measures.
METHODS
This study included randomized controlled trials up to February 2023 comparing the efficacy of corticosteroid-related therapy and anti-VEGF therapy. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched, and the quality of the studies was carefully assessed. Finally, 39 studies were included.
RESULTS
Results at 3-month followup showed that intravitreal injection of bevacizumab (IVB) + triamcinolone acetonide (TA) was the most beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of macular edema in the center of the retina in patients with DME. Results at 6-month follow-up showed that intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) was the most effective in improving patients' bestcorrected visual acuity and reducing the thickness of central macular edema.
DISCUSSION
Overall, IVB+TA was beneficial in improving best-corrected visual acuity and reducing central macular edema thickness over a 3-month follow-up period, while DEX implants had a better therapeutic effect than anti-VEGF agents at 6 months, especially the patients with severe macular edema and visual acuity impaired.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=397100, identifier CRD42023397100.
Topics: Humans; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Retinopathy; Glucocorticoids; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 38586457
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1342530 -
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery... Oct 2023Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee represents a severe complication after 1.5% to 2% of primary total knee replacement. Although two-stage revision was... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee represents a severe complication after 1.5% to 2% of primary total knee replacement. Although two-stage revision was considered the gold-standard treatment for PJI of the knee, in the last decades, more studies reported the outcomes of one-stage revisions. This systematic review aims to assess reinfection rate, infection-free survival after reoperation for recurrent infection, and the microorganisms involved in both primary and recurrent infection.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review of all studies reporting the outcome of one-stage revision for PJI of the knee up to September 2022, according to PRISMA criteria and AMSTAR2 guidelines, was performed. Patient demographics, clinical, surgical, and postoperative data were recorded.
PROSPERO ID
CRD42022362767.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies with a total of 881 one-stage revisions for PJI of the knee were analyzed. A reinfection rate of 12.2% after an average follow-up of 57.6 months was reported. The most frequent causative microorganism were gram-positive bacteria (71.1%), gram-negative bacteria (7.1%), and polymicrobial infections (8%). The average postoperative knee society score was 81.5, and the average postoperative knee function score was 74.2. The infection-free survival after treatment for recurrent infection was 92.1%. The causative microorganisms at reinfections differed significantly from the primary infection (gram-positive 44.4%, gram-negative 11.1%).
CONCLUSION
Patients who underwent a one-stage revision for PJI of the knee showed a reinfection rate lower or comparable to other surgical treatments as two-stage or DAIR (debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention). Reoperation for reinfection demonstrates a lower success compared to one-stage revision. Moreover, microbiology differs between primary infection and recurrent infection. Level of evidence Level IV.
Topics: Humans; Reinfection; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Treatment Outcome; Debridement; Knee Joint; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Reoperation; Arthritis, Infectious; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36867259
DOI: 10.1007/s00590-023-03480-7 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jul 2020Since silicone breast implants were introduced to the market several decades ago, the safety of breast implants has remained controversial. Recently, several studies...
Since silicone breast implants were introduced to the market several decades ago, the safety of breast implants has remained controversial. Recently, several studies have explored breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and breast implant illness (BII). Several countries have developed national breast implant registries to improve the safety and quality of breast implant surgery. We performed a systematic review of the current status of national breast implant registries and propose a pilot form of an appropriate breast implant registry model for Korea. The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the "preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) pro forma". PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched to identify all articles containing information on national breast implant registries. We limited the search to articles written in the English language from 2010 to 2020. Articles were reviewed by two independent authors. A total of 63 articles related to national breast implant registries, registry principles and national breast implant registry annual reports were identified. After reviewing the literature, 25 national breast implant registry-related articles were included in the full-text synthesis. Currently, four countries, The Netherlands, Australia, Sweden, and the UK, have breast implant registries with well-formed sources for big data. Overall, similarities in data points were detected for three categories: implant-related complications, operation details, and device information. However, there were differences for each registry in terms of governance, funding, and capture rate. After reviewing other countries' experiences, tentative datasets for the Korean Breast Implant Registry (K-BIR) were developed. The K-BIR can improve the quality of breast implant surgery in Korea by providing datasets on overall processes and outcome measures with quality indicators and risk adjustment factors. This approach will register characteristics of patients and monitor breast implants, complications, and surgical procedures to improve the outcomes of breast implant surgery in Korea. In addition, it can be used as a track-and-trace system with automated notifications to patients in the event of a product recall or other safety concerns related to a specific type of implant.
Topics: Adult; Australia; Austria; Breast Implantation; Breast Implants; Equipment and Supplies; Female; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Registries; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 32718052
DOI: 10.3390/medicina56080370 -
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Nov 2019This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison between Ozurdex and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for retinal vein occlusion-related macular edema: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal dexamethasone (DEX) implant and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatments for macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO), central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO), and branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). The electronic databases comprehensively searched for the studies that compared DEX with anti-VEGF treatments in patients suffering from RVO-related ME. The effectiveness was estimated using best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), central retinal thickness (CRT), and intraocular pressure (IOP). All data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3. According to the meta-analysis from five randomized control trials, both DEX implant and anti-VEGF agent treatments were effective, but no significant differences in BCVA and CRT were observed between these two treatments. Novartis' two studies indicated that anti-VEGF agents significantly reduced the CRT compared with DEX implant at 6 months [weighted mean difference: 158.53 μm, 95% confidence interval (CI): (71.09, 245.96), P= 0.0004]. Furthermore, anti-VEGF agents showed some advantages on cataract formation [risk ratio (RR): 3.43, 95% CI: (1.35, 8.71), P= 0.009] and other adverse events [RR: 1.19, 95% CI: (1.09, 1.31), P= 0.0002] without heterogeneity (P = 0.20, I = 35%). Anti-VEGF agents were also effective treatments for cataract formation or less adverse events for RVO-related ME. In contrast, DEX implant had higher risk for IOP elevation and lower cataract incidence than anti-VEGF agents. Hence, complementary and alternative treatments are expected.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Bevacizumab; Dexamethasone; Drug Implants; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Retinal Vein Occlusion; Tomography, Optical Coherence; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 31638037
DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_382_19 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Feb 2023Erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP) and X-linked protoporphyria (XLP) are characterized by skin photosensitivity caused by accumulation of protoporphyrin IX. We aimed to... (Review)
Review
Erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP) and X-linked protoporphyria (XLP) are characterized by skin photosensitivity caused by accumulation of protoporphyrin IX. We aimed to review the clinical evidence of efficacy and safety of skin photosensitivity treatments in individuals with EPP or XLP. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 40 studies with data on 18 treatment modalities were included. Comprehensive treatment safety data were obtained from the European Medicines Agency and the United States Food and Drug Administration. The studies used different outcome measures to evaluate the sensitivity without a generally accepted method to assess treatment effect on skin photosensitivity. Of the included studies, 13 were controlled trials. Gathered, the trials showed moderate positive effect of inorganic sunscreen application and subcutaneous implant of afamelanotide and no effect of organic sunscreen application, or oral treatment with beta-carotene, cysteine, N-acetylcysteine, vitamin C, or warfarin. Studies without control groups suggested treatment effect of foundation cream, dihydroxyacetone/lawsone cream, narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy, erythrocyte transfusion, extracorporeal erythrocyte photodynamic therapy, or oral treatment with zinc sulphate, terfenadine, cimetidine, or canthaxanthin, but the real effect is uncertain. Assessment of treatment effect on photosensitivity in patients with EPP or XLP carries a high risk of bias since experienced photosensitivity varies with both weather conditions, exposure pattern, and pigmentation. Controlled trials of promising treatment options are important although challenging in this small patient population.
Topics: United States; Humans; Protoporphyria, Erythropoietic; Sunscreening Agents; Photosensitivity Disorders; Genetic Diseases, X-Linked; Protoporphyrins
PubMed: 36525819
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.114132 -
Clinical Cardiology Dec 2023Because of the advancement of bioabsorbable polymers and thinner struts, bioabsorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) with ultrathin struts may be related to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Long-term safety of ultrathin bioabsorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin durable-polymer drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Because of the advancement of bioabsorbable polymers and thinner struts, bioabsorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) with ultrathin struts may be related to superior performance when compared to durable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) with thin struts. Nonetheless, the long-term safety of ultrathin BP-SES in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unknown.
METHODS
We sought to assess the long-term safety of ultrathin BP-SES in ACS patients, conducting a thorough meta-analysis of all relevant trials drawing a comparison between ultrathin BP-SES and contemporary thin DP-DES. Target lesion failure (TLF), which includes cardiac death (CD), target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) was considered the primary endpoint. Multiple databases comprising Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Pubmed were all thoroughly searched.
RESULTS
There were seven randomized controlled trials included in our study with 7522 randomized patients with ACS (BP-SES = 3888, DP-DES = 3634). TLF occurred in 371 (9.5% in BP-SES) and 393 (10.8% in DP-DES) patients, respectively, across a 40.7-month weighted mean follow-up, with no statistically significant group differences (risk ratio [RR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.04; p = .12). Furthermore, no significant differences in cardiac death (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.68-1.35; p = .81), TV-MI (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.36-1.10; p = .10) and CD-TLR (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.46-1.29; p = .32) were detected between two groups.
CONCLUSION
During a follow-up of 40.7 months, ultrathin BP-SES and thin DP-DES had a comparable risk of TLF and its individual components (CD, TV-MI, and CD-TLR), indicating that ultrathin BP-SES held at least the same safety and efficiency as thin DP-DES presented in patients with ACS.
Topics: Humans; Sirolimus; Drug-Eluting Stents; Everolimus; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Polymers; Coronary Artery Disease; Absorbable Implants; Treatment Outcome; Myocardial Infarction; Stents; Death; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Prosthesis Design; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37661458
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24139