-
Cureus Nov 2023A review of the literature was made to find and choose research papers, on drugs (amiodarone and adenosine) used for managing supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in... (Review)
Review
A review of the literature was made to find and choose research papers, on drugs (amiodarone and adenosine) used for managing supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in children and infants (one hour to 17 years of age) with no structural heart disease by PRISMA guideline. Our team conducted an exhaustive systematic literature review (SLR), utilizing an extensive search methodology across recognized databases like PubMed, PubMed Central, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library. We included 10 scholarly articles that satisfied our rigorous selection criteria including systematic reviews/meta-analysis, and randomized control trials, shedding light on treatment with amiodarone and adenosine for SVT in pediatric patients. There is no first- or second-line treatment for SVT in pediatrics, and drug effectiveness can vary significantly between patients. Adenosine has a shorter half-life than other drugs, instead, it is safer and more valuable when an electrocardiogram is uncertain, it is recommended as an acute management, and it continues as the first-line option for paroxysmal SVT. Amiodarone management patients with acute STV within, its use showed better results when administered 48 hours after diagnosis. Furthermore, it is recommended to reduce the incidence of junctional ectopic tachycardia (JET), by pre-operative prophylaxis, also for chronic control in this and other types of SVT. In none of the evaluated studies were documented significant adverse effects in pediatric patients. Side effects that did occur were mild and easily managed. The studies also emphasize that although both amiodarone and adenosine can successfully convert SVT to sinus rhythm, better results have been observed when using combined therapies of each recommended medication. Therefore, more randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews are needed to solidify and possibly standardize an effective and safe pharmacological treatment for SVT and its types in pediatric patients.
PubMed: 38073952
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48507 -
Drugs Aug 2022High-quality evidence from trials directly comparing single antiplatelet therapies in symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) to dual antiplatelet therapies or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
High-quality evidence from trials directly comparing single antiplatelet therapies in symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) to dual antiplatelet therapies or acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) plus low-dose rivaroxaban is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis on the effectiveness of all antithrombotic regimens studied in PAD.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleedings. Secondary endpoints were major adverse limb events (MALE) and acute limb ischaemia (ALI). For each outcome, a frequentist network meta-analysis was used to compare relative risks (RRs) between medication and ASA. ASA was the universal comparator since a majority of studies used ASA as in the reference group.
RESULTS
Twenty-four randomized controlled trials were identified including 48,759 patients. With regard to reducing MACE, clopidogrel [RR 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.93], ticagrelor (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97), ASA plus ticagrelor (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.97), and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93) were more effective than ASA, and equally effective to one another. As compared to ASA, major bleedings occurred more frequently with vitamin K antagonists, rivaroxaban, ASA plus vitamin K antagonists, and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban. All regimens were similar to ASA concerning MALE, while ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban was more effective in preventing ALI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.80). Subgroup analysis in patients undergoing peripheral revascularization revealed that ≥ 3 months after intervention, evidence of benefit regarding clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and ASA plus ticagrelor was lacking, while ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban was more effective in preventing MACE (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97) and MALE (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.97) compared to ASA. ASA plus clopidogrel was not superior to ASA in preventing MACE ≥ 3 months after revascularization. Evidence regarding antithrombotic treatment strategies within 3 months after a peripheral intervention was lacking.
CONCLUSION
Clopidogrel, ticagrelor, ASA plus ticagrelor, and ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban are superior to ASA monotherapy and equally effective to one another in preventing MACE in PAD. Of these four therapies, only ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban provides a higher risk of major bleedings. More than 3 months after peripheral vascular intervention, ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban is superior in preventing MACE and MALE compared to ASA but again at the cost of a higher risk of bleeding, while other treatment regimens show non-superiority. Based on the current evidence, clopidogrel may be considered the antithrombotic therapy of choice for most PAD patients, while in patients who underwent a peripheral vascular intervention, ASA plus low-dose rivaroxaban could be considered for the long-term (> 3 months) prevention of MACE and MALE.
Topics: Aspirin; Clopidogrel; Fibrinolytic Agents; Hemorrhage; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Peripheral Arterial Disease; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Rivaroxaban; Ticagrelor; Vitamin K
PubMed: 35997941
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-022-01756-6 -
Heart, Lung & Circulation May 2018Adenosine can be used to reveal dormant pulmonary vein (PV) conduction after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Adenosine can be used to reveal dormant pulmonary vein (PV) conduction after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of adenosine administration in patients undergoing PVI for AF.
METHODS
Meta-analysis of 22 studies was performed to assess the rates of freedom from AF in 1) patients with dormant PV conduction versus patients without dormant PV conduction, and 2) patients given routine adenosine post PVI versus patients not given adenosine. Relative-risks (RR) were calculated using random effects modelling.
RESULTS
In 18 studies, 3038 patients received adenosine and freedom from AF in those patients with dormant PV reconnection was significantly lower (62.9%) compared to patients without PV reconnection (67.2%) (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78-0.98). In seven studies with 3049 patients, the freedom from AF was significantly higher in patients who received adenosine (67%) versus those patients who did not receive adenosine (63%) (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.01-1.22).
CONCLUSIONS
The present study showed clear benefits of adenosine testing for freedom from AF recurrence. Adenosine-guided dormant conduction is associated with higher AF recurrence despite further ablation. Future studies should investigate the optimal methodology, including dosage and waiting time between PVI and adenosine administration.
Topics: Adenosine; Atrial Fibrillation; Catheter Ablation; Heart Conduction System; Heart Rate; Humans; Postoperative Period; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 28655535
DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2017.04.020 -
Lancet (London, England) May 2020Antiplatelet therapy is recommended among patients with established atherosclerosis. We compared monotherapy with a P2Y inhibitor versus aspirin for secondary prevention. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antiplatelet therapy is recommended among patients with established atherosclerosis. We compared monotherapy with a P2Y inhibitor versus aspirin for secondary prevention.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, all randomised trials comparing P2Y inhibitor with aspirin monotherapy for secondary prevention in patients with cerebrovascular, coronary, or peripheral artery disease were evaluated for inclusion. On Dec 18, 2019, we searched PubMed, Embase, BioMedCentral, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additionally, we reviewed references from identified articles and searched abstracts from 2017 to 2019 presented at relevant scientific meetings. Data about year of publication, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size, baseline patients' features including the baseline condition determining study inclusion (ie, cerebrovascular, coronary, or peripheral artery disease), P2Y inhibitor type and dosage, aspirin dosage, endpoint definitions, effect estimates, follow-up duration, and percentage of patients lost to follow-up were collected. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were used as metric of choice for treatment effects with random-effects models. Co-primary endpoints were myocardial infarction and stroke. Key secondary endpoints were all-cause death and vascular death. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I index. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018115037).
FINDINGS
A total of nine randomised trials were identified and included in this study, and 42 108 patients randomly allocated to a P2Y inhibitor (n=21 043) or aspirin (n=21 065) were included in our analyses. Patients who received a P2Y inhibitor had a borderline reduction for the risk of myocardial infarction compared with those who received aspirin (OR 0·81 [95% CI 0·66-0·99]; I=10·9%). Risks of stroke (OR 0·93 [0·82-1·06]; I=34·5%), all-cause death (OR 0·98 [0·89-1·08]; I=0%), and vascular death (OR 0·97 [0·86-1·09]; I=0%) did not differ between patients who received a P2Y inhibitor and those who received aspirin. Similarly, the risk of major bleeding (OR 0·90 [0·74-1·10]; I=3·9%) did not differ between patients who received a P2Y inhibitor and those who received aspirin. The number needed to treat to prevent one myocardial infarction with P2Y inhibitor monotherapy was 244 patients. Findings were consistent regardless of the type of P2Y inhibitor used.
INTERPRETATION
Compared with aspirin monotherapy, P2Y inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a risk reduction for myocardial infarction and a comparable risk of stroke in the setting of secondary prevention. The benefit of P2Y inhibitor monotherapy is of debatable clinical relevance, in view of the high number needed to treat to prevent a myocardial infarction and the absence of any effect on all-cause and vascular mortality.
FUNDING
Italian Ministry of Education.
Topics: Aged; Aspirin; Atherosclerosis; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Clopidogrel; Coronary Disease; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Peripheral Arterial Disease; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Secondary Prevention; Stroke; Ticagrelor; Ticlopidine
PubMed: 32386592
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30315-9 -
Circulation. Cardiovascular... Sep 2023Short-term (≤6 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and DAPT de-escalation become attractive for patients with acute coronary syndrome. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Short-term (≤6 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and DAPT de-escalation become attractive for patients with acute coronary syndrome.
METHODS
A systemic search identified randomized controlled trials that included patients with acute coronary syndrome treated using (1) standard DAPT (12 months) with clopidogrel, prasugrel (standard/low dose), or ticagrelor; (2) extended DAPT (≥18 months); (3) short-term DAPT (≤6 months) followed by P2Y inhibitor or aspirin; (4) 12-month DAPT with unguided de-escalation from potent P2Y inhibitors to low-dose potent P2Y inhibitor or clopidogrel at 1 month; and (5) guided selection DAPT with genotype or platelet function tests. The primary efficacy outcome (major adverse cardiovascular events) was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety outcome was major or minor bleeding.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 32 randomized controlled trials with 103 497 patients. While there were no differences in efficacy between short, unguided de-escalation and guided selection strategies, unguided de-escalation was associated with reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with standard DAPT with clopidogrel or ticagrelor (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.67 [0.49-0.93] and 0.68 [0.50-0.93]). Both short DAPT followed by P2Y inhibitor and unguided de-escalation were associated with reduced risks in safety compared with other strategies, including guided selection (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.66 [0.47-0.93] and 0.48 [0.33-0.71]). Short DAPT followed by a P2Y inhibitor was associated with reduced risk of major bleeding and all-cause death compared with standard, extended DAPT (eg, versus DAPT with clopidogrel; hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.64 [0.42-0.97] and 0.60 [0.44-0.82]). By rankogram, unguided de-escalation strategy was the safest and most effective strategy in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and major or minor bleeding while short DAPT followed by P2Y inhibitor was ranked the best for major bleeding and all-cause death.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with acute coronary syndrome, unguided de-escalation was associated with the lowest risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and major or minor bleeding outcomes, while short DAPT followed by P2Y inhibitor was associated with the lowest risk of major bleeding and all-cause death.
Topics: Humans; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Clopidogrel; Ticagrelor; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37609850
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.123.013242 -
JAMA Cardiology May 2024Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether the treatment efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), it remains unclear whether the treatment efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) depends on the type of P2Y12 inhibitor.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the risks and benefits of ticagrelor monotherapy or clopidogrel monotherapy compared with standard DAPT after PCI.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, TCTMD, and the European Society of Cardiology website were searched from inception to September 10, 2023, without language restriction.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT on adjudicated end points in patients without indication to oral anticoagulation undergoing PCI.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Patient-level data provided by each trial were synthesized into a pooled dataset and analyzed using a 1-step mixed-effects model. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary objective was to determine noninferiority of ticagrelor or clopidogrel monotherapy vs DAPT on the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the per-protocol analysis with a 1.15 margin for the hazard ratio (HR). Key secondary end points were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (NACE), including the primary end point and major bleeding.
RESULTS
Analyses included 6 randomized trials including 25 960 patients undergoing PCI, of whom 24 394 patients (12 403 patients receiving DAPT; 8292 patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy; 3654 patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy; 45 patients receiving prasugrel monotherapy) were retained in the per-protocol analysis. Trials of ticagrelor monotherapy were conducted in Asia, Europe, and North America; trials of clopidogrel monotherapy were all conducted in Asia. Ticagrelor was noninferior to DAPT for the primary end point (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.06; P for noninferiority = .004), but clopidogrel was not noninferior (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.87; P for noninferiority > .99), with this finding driven by noncardiovascular death. The risk of major bleeding was lower with both ticagrelor (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.36-0.62; P < .001) and clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81; P = .006; P for interaction = 0.88). NACE were lower with ticagrelor (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86, P < .001) but not with clopidogrel monotherapy (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.28; P = .99; P for interaction = .04).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis found that ticagrelor monotherapy was noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke and superior for major bleeding and NACE. Clopidogrel monotherapy was similarly associated with reduced bleeding but was not noninferior to DAPT for all-cause death, MI, or stroke, largely because of risk observed in 1 trial that exclusively included East Asian patients and a hazard that was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death.
Topics: Ticagrelor; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Humans; Clopidogrel; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy; Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists; Hemorrhage
PubMed: 38506796
DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2024.0133 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Coenzyme Q10, or ubiquinone, is a non-prescription nutritional supplement. It is a fat-soluble molecule that acts as an electron carrier in mitochondria, and as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Coenzyme Q10, or ubiquinone, is a non-prescription nutritional supplement. It is a fat-soluble molecule that acts as an electron carrier in mitochondria, and as a coenzyme for mitochondrial enzymes. Coenzyme Q10 deficiency may be associated with a multitude of diseases, including heart failure. The severity of heart failure correlates with the severity of coenzyme Q10 deficiency. Emerging data suggest that the harmful effects of reactive oxygen species are increased in people with heart failure, and coenzyme Q10 may help to reduce these toxic effects because of its antioxidant activity. Coenzyme Q10 may also have a role in stabilising myocardial calcium-dependent ion channels, and in preventing the consumption of metabolites essential for adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) synthesis. Coenzyme Q10, although not a primary recommended treatment, could be beneficial to people with heart failure. Several randomised controlled trials have compared coenzyme Q10 to other therapeutic modalities, but no systematic review of existing randomised trials was conducted prior to the original version of this Cochrane Review, in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To review the safety and efficacy of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and AMED on 16 October 2020; ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2020, and the ISRCTN Registry on 11 November 2019. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of either parallel or cross-over design that assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of coenzyme Q10 in people with heart failure. When we identified cross-over studies, we considered data only from the first phase.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, assessed study risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR); for continuous data, the mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate data were available, we conducted meta-analysis. When meta-analysis was not possible, we wrote a narrative synthesis. We provided a PRISMA flow chart to show the flow of study selection.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eleven studies, with 1573 participants, comparing coenzyme Q10 to placebo or conventional therapy (control). In the majority of the studies, sample size was relatively small. There were important differences among studies in daily coenzyme Q10 dose, follow-up period, and the measures of treatment effect. All studies had unclear, or high risk of bias, or both, in one or more bias domains. We were only able to conduct meta-analysis for some of the outcomes. None of the included trials considered quality of life, measured on a validated scale, exercise variables (exercise haemodynamics), or cost-effectiveness. Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality more than control (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.95; 1 study, 420 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13.3; moderate-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence of inconclusive results between the coenzyme Q10 and control groups for the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 9.59; 1 study, 420 participants), and stroke (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.48; 1 study, 420 participants). Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces hospitalisation related to heart failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.78; 2 studies, 1061 participants; NNTB 9.7; moderate-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence suggests that coenzyme Q10 may improve the left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 1.77, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.44; 7 studies, 650 participants), but the results are inconclusive for exercise capacity (MD 48.23, 95% CI -24.75 to 121.20; 3 studies, 91 participants); and the risk of developing adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 2 studies, 568 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The included studies provide moderate-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 probably reduces all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for heart failure. There is low-quality evidence of inconclusive results as to whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on the risk of myocardial infarction, or stroke. Because of very low-quality evidence, it is very uncertain whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on either left ventricular ejection fraction or exercise capacity. There is low-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 may increase the risk of adverse effects, or have little to no difference. There is currently no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of coenzyme Q10 for heart failure. Future trials are needed to confirm our findings.
Topics: Ataxia; Heart Failure; Humans; Mitochondrial Diseases; Muscle Weakness; Myocardial Infarction; Quality of Life; Stroke; Stroke Volume; Ubiquinone; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 35608922
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008684.pub3 -
JAMA Neurology Feb 2022Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin is effective in preventing recurrent strokes after minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with clopidogrel and aspirin is effective in preventing recurrent strokes after minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). However, there is emerging evidence for the use of ticagrelor and aspirin, and the 2 DAPT regimens have not been compared directly.
OBJECTIVE
To compare ticagrelor and aspirin with clopidogrel and aspirin in patients with acute minor ischemic stroke or TIA in the prevention of recurrent strokes or death.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane from database inception until February 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials that enrolled adults with acute minor ischemic stroke or TIA and provided the mentioned interventions within 72 hours of symptom onset, with a minimum follow-up of 30 days.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses were followed. Two reviewers independently extracted data and appraised risk of bias. Fixed-effects models were fit using a bayesian approach to network meta-analysis. Between-group comparisons were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Surface under the cumulative rank curve plots were produced.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent stroke or death up to 90 days. Secondary outcomes include major bleeding, mortality, adverse events, and functional disability. A sensitivity analysis was performed at 30 days for the primary outcome.
RESULTS
A total of 4014 citations were screened; 5 randomized clinical trials were included. Data from 22 098 patients were analyzed, including 5517 in the clopidogrel and aspirin arm, 5859 in the ticagrelor and aspirin arm, and 10 722 in the aspirin arm. Both clopidogrel and aspirin (HR, 0.74; 95% CrI, 0.65-0.84) and ticagrelor and aspirin (HR, 0.79; 95% CrI, 0.68-0.91) were superior to aspirin in the prevention of recurrent stroke and death. There was no statistically significant difference between clopidogrel and aspirin compared with ticagrelor and aspirin (HR, 0.94; 95% CrI, 0.78-1.13). Both DAPT regimens had higher rates of major hemorrhage than aspirin alone. Clopidogrel and aspirin was associated with a decreased risk of functional disability compared with aspirin alone (HR, 0.82; 95% CrI, 0.74-0.91) and ticagrelor and aspirin (HR, 0.85; 95% CrI, 0.75-0.97).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
DAPT combining aspirin with either ticagrelor or clopidogrel was superior to aspirin alone, but there was no statistically significant difference found between the 2 regimens for the primary outcome.
Topics: Aspirin; Clopidogrel; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy; Humans; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Ischemic Stroke; Network Meta-Analysis; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Ticagrelor
PubMed: 34870698
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.4514 -
JAMA Aug 2022The role of ticagrelor with or without aspirin after coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains unclear. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The role of ticagrelor with or without aspirin after coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the risks of vein graft failure and bleeding associated with ticagrelor dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or ticagrelor monotherapy vs aspirin among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 1, 2022, without language restriction.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of ticagrelor DAPT or ticagrelor monotherapy vs aspirin on saphenous vein graft failure.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient data provided by each trial were synthesized into a combined data set for independent analysis. Multilevel logistic regression models were used.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary analysis assessed the incidence of saphenous vein graft failure per graft (primary outcome) in RCTs comparing ticagrelor DAPT with aspirin. Secondary outcomes were saphenous vein graft failure per patient and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events. A supplementary analysis included RCTs comparing ticagrelor monotherapy with aspirin.
RESULTS
A total of 4 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, involving 1316 patients and 1668 saphenous vein grafts. Of the 871 patients in the primary analysis, 435 received ticagrelor DAPT (median age, 67 years [IQR, 60-72 years]; 65 women [14.9%]; 370 men [85.1%]) and 436 received aspirin (median age, 66 years [IQR, 61-73 years]; 63 women [14.5%]; 373 men [85.5%]). Ticagrelor DAPT was associated with a significantly lower incidence of saphenous vein graft failure (11.2%) per graft than was aspirin (20%; difference, -8.7% [95% CI, -13.5% to -3.9%]; OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.74]; P < .001) and was associated with a significantly lower incidence of saphenous vein graft failure per patient (13.2% vs 23.0%, difference, -9.7% [95% CI, -14.9% to -4.4%]; OR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.74]; P < .001). Ticagrelor DAPT (22.1%) was associated with a significantly higher incidence of BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events than was aspirin (8.7%; difference, 13.3% [95% CI, 8.6% to 18.0%]; OR, 2.98 [95% CI, 1.99 to 4.47]; P < .001), but not BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding events (1.8% vs 1.8%, difference, 0% [95% CI, -1.8% to 1.8%]; OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.37 to 2.69]; P = .99). Compared with aspirin, ticagrelor monotherapy was not significantly associated with saphenous vein graft failure (19.3% vs 21.7%, difference, -2.6% [95% CI, -9.1% to 3.9%]; OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27]; P = .44) or BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding events (8.9% vs 7.3%, difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -2.8% to 6.1%]; OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.69 to 2.29]; P = .46).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, adding ticagrelor to aspirin was associated with a significantly decreased risk of vein graft failure. However, this was accompanied by a significantly increased risk of clinically important bleeding.
Topics: Aged; Aspirin; Coronary Artery Bypass; Female; Graft Occlusion, Vascular; Hemorrhage; Humans; Male; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saphenous Vein; Ticagrelor; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35943473
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.11966 -
PloS One 2017Perioperative infusion of adenosine has been suggested to reduce the requirement for inhalation anesthetics, without causing serious adverse effects in humans. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Perioperative infusion of adenosine has been suggested to reduce the requirement for inhalation anesthetics, without causing serious adverse effects in humans. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of adenosine on postoperative analgesia.
METHODS
We retrieved articles in computerized searches of Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, up to July 2016. We used adenosine, postoperative analgesia, and postoperative pain(s) as key words, with humans, RCT, and CCT as filters. Data of eligible studies were extracted, which included pain scores, cumulative opioid consumption, adverse reactions, and vital signs. Overall incidence rates, relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated employing fixed-effects or random-effects models, depending on the heterogeneity of the included trials.
RESULTS
In total, 757 patients from 9 studies were included. The overall effect of adenosine on postoperative VAS/VRS scores and postoperative opioid consumption was not significantly different from that of controls (P >0.1). The occurrence of PONV and pruritus was not statistically significantly different between an adenosine and nonremifentanil subgroup (P >0.1), but the rate of PONV occurrence was greater in the remifentanil subgroup (P <0.01). Time to first postoperative analgesic requirement in the adenosine group was not significantly difference from that of the saline group (SMD = 0.07, 95%CI: -0.28 to 0.41, P = 0.71); but this occurred significantly later than with remifentanil (SMD = 1.10, 95%CI: 2.48 to 4.06, P < 0.01). Time to hospital discharge was not significantly different between the control and adenosine groups (P = 0.78). The perioperative systolic blood pressure was significantly lower in the adenosine than in the control group in the mannitol subgroup (P < 0.01). The incidence of bradycardia, transient first- degree atrioventricular block, and tachycardia was not significantly different between the adenosine and control groups (P > 0.1).
CONCLUSION
Adenosine has no analgesic effect or prophylactic effect against PONV, but reduce systolic blood pressure and heart rates. Adenosine may benefit patients with hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and tachyarrhythmia, thereby improving cardiac function.
Topics: Adenosine; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pain, Postoperative; Young Adult
PubMed: 28333936
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173518