Wen-Qin Guo

The effect of alprostadil on preventing contrast-induced nephropathy for percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background:At present, there are a lot of research about the effect of Alprostadil on preventing contrast-induced nephropathy for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients, but the clinical efficacy is not consistent, so we conduct this study and therefore determine the dominant strategy for the treatment of PCI in diabetic patients based on the best evidence currently. Methods:An electronic database search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang to retrieve randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing Alprostadil versus hydration on preventing CIN for PCI in diabetic patients. Reference lists of relevant articles were also screened manually to retrieve additional ones. Two investigators independently assessed the eligibility of retrieved articles using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. All characteristics as well as outcome variables including incidence of CIN, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), cystatin C (CysC), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), serum creatinine (Scr), serum beta 2-microspheres (&bgr;2-MG) presented in each included study were extracted. Heterogeneity was thought to be significant when I2 > 50%. All of the meta-analytic procedures were performed by using Review Manager software, version 5.3. Results:Finally, data from 8 articles including 969 patients were included into this meta-analysis, among them, 487 patients in the experience group, and 482 patients in the control group. Meta analysis showed that the incidence of CIN in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (OR = 0.28,95%CI[0.18,0.42]). The incidence of adverse reactions in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group (OR = 0.46,95%CI[0.24,0.85]). The BUN of 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours in the experimental group were significantly lower than that of control group (MD = –0.77, 95%CI [−1.22, –0.32]; MD = –1.38, 95%CI [−1.83,–0.92]; MD = –2.43, 95%CI [−2.68,–2.19], respectively). The CysC of 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours in the experimental group were significantly lower than that of control group (MD = –0.30, 95%CI [−0.40, –0.21]; MD = –0.54, 95%CI [−0.68,–0.41]; MD = –0.49, 95%CI [−0.63, –0.35], respectively). The GFR of 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours in the experimental group were significantly higher than that of control group (MD = 7.86, 95%CI [4.44, 11.29], MD = 18.23, 95%CI [13.76,22.69], MD = 12.81, 95%CI [8.51,17.11], respectively). The Scr of 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours in the experimental group were significantly lower than that of control group (MD = –9.09, 95%CI [−12.67, –5.51], MD = –19.14, 95%CI [−23.61, –14.66], MD = –6.50, 95%CI [−8.29, –4.71], respectively). The &bgr;2-MG of 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours in the experimental group were significantly lower than that of control group (MD = –0.12, 95%CI [−0.27, 0.03], MD = –0.55, 95%CI [−0.71, –0.39], MD = –0.50, 95%CI [−0.60, –0.39], respectively). Conclusion:Our result suggested that comparing with conventional Hydration, Alprostadil can significantly reduce the incidence of CIN, adverse reaction, and protect renal function in PCI in diabetic patients. Due to the limitations of the quality and quantity of the articles, this conclusion still needs further research to confirm.

Effect of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors on Heart Failure: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND Previous meta-analyses evaluating the effectiveness of individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors on the risk of heart failure (HF) were limited because of the small number of trials with direct comparisons between two treatments. METHODS A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of HF in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus. The primary outcome was the occurrence of HF or hospital admission for HF. RESULTS Fifty randomized controlled trials were identified. Relative to placebo, no increased risk of HF events was seen for vildagliptin (risk ratio [RR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-1.68), sitagliptin (RR 0.86; CI 0.43-1.57), or saxagliptin (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.33-1.61), but alogliptin was associated with a higher risk of HF (RR 2.13; 95% CI 1.06-6.26). Vildagliptin and sitagliptin were associated with a significantly decreased risk of HF compared with alogliptin. Vildagliptin had the highest probability to be the safest option with regard to the risk of HF (49.18%), followed by saxagliptin (26.56%), sitagliptin (20.76%), linagliptin (0.25%), and alogliptin (0.12%). A statistically significant inconsistency was noted in some comparisons. CONCLUSIONS The risk of HF needs to be taken into account when prescribing DPP-4 inhibitors. Evidence suggests that vildagliptin may be the least harmful agent with regard to the risk of HF. However, a statistically significant inconsistency was identified in the Bayesian network meta-analysis. Therefore, further studies are warranted to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors.

Clinical effect of trimetazidine on prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with renal insufficiency: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: With the continuous development of cardiac interventional medicine, the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is increasing every year, which is a serious threat to peoples physical and mental health. Trimetazidine (TMZ) is a type of anti-ischemic drug developed in recent years, which can significantly reduce the incidence of CIN. At present, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical effect of TMZ on prevention of CIN in patients with renal insufficiency. However, the study did not include patients from other countries and speaking different languages. So we conducted this study to update the previous meta-analysis that investigated the effects of TMZ on prevention of CIN in patients with renal insufficiency, and provided some theoretical reference for clinical. Methods: By searching PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP database, and Wang Fang database for randomized controlled trial, which is comparing TMZ versus conventional hydration for prevention of CIN. Two researchers independently screened literature, and then evaluated the quality of literature and extracted the relevant data. Stata 11.0 software was used for statistical analysis. Results: Finally, this updated review showed that 3 studies that were not included in the previous meta-analysis were included in our study (3 articles were published in the Chinese Journal, 1 study for CIN, 1 study for CIN, serum creatinine (Scr), and superoxide dismutase, 1 study for CIN and Scr), and 1 outcome (Scr) reflecting the change of renal function was additionally included in our study. Of the 932 studies, 6 randomized controlled trials met the criteria, including 377 patients in TMZ group and 387 patients in control group. This meta-analysis for all studies showed that TMZ can significantly reduce the incidence of CIN (relative risk 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16, 0.46, P = 0.000), and can decrease the level of Scr after operation, including Scr of postoperative 24 hours (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.30, 95% CI −0.51, −0.09, P = 0.005), Scr of postoperative 48 hours (SMD −0.66, 95% CI −1.23, −0.10, P = 0.022), and Scr of postoperative 7 days (SMD −0.74, 95% CI −1.36, −0.11, P = 0.021). However, the Scr of postoperative 72 hours between TMZ group and control group has no statistical significance (P = 0.362). Conclusion: Our study showed that when comparing with conventional hydration, TMZ can significantly reduce the incidence of CIN and the level of postoperative Scr. Therefore, we could suggest that TMZ was superior to conventional hydration for the treatment of CIN in patients with renal insufficiency. However, due to the restriction of quality and number of included articles, it still needs to carry out multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trials to confirm this conclusion in the future.

Short- versus long-term dual antiplatelet therapy after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background The optimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration after second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains unclear. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of short-term (≤6 months) and long-term (≥12 months) DAPT after second-generation DES implantation. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov in the English language. The endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiac death, non-cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), stroke, all bleeding, and major bleeding. The effect estimate was expressed by using the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI and random effect models. Results Seven RCTs with 13,571 patients were included in this study. In terms of survival endpoints, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.71–1.17), cardiac death (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.67–1.29), and non-cardiac death (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.62–1.28) in the 2 groups. Moreover, there was no significant difference in ischemic outcomes, including MI (HR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.91–1.45), ST (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.75–1.66), and stroke (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.53–1.35) in the 2 groups. In terms of bleeding endpoints, there was no significant difference in all bleeding (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.64–1.04) and major bleeding (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.49–1.36) in the 2 groups. The subgroup analysis showed that the proportion of patients with acute coronary syndrome was not associated with the benefit of long-term versus short-term DAPT. Conclusion Short-term DAPT is not inferior to long-term DAPT in patients implanted with second-generation DES.

Effect of high-dose rosuvastatin loading before percutaneous coronary intervention in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is an important disease threatening human life and health. Many studies have shown that the loading dose of atorvastatin can significantly improve the prognosis of patients with ACS, and reduce the mortality. However, this conclusion is not consistent. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the effect of high-dose rosuvastatin loading before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in Chinese patients with ACS using a meta-analysis based on a systematic review of published articles. Methods We systematically reviewed published studies, evaluating the effect of high-dose rosuvastatin loading before percutaneous coronary intervention in Chinese patients with ACS. The retrieval time is limited from inception to 2 November 2016, and the retrieved databases included PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, the VIP database and the Wang Fang database. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of the included studies and then extracted the data. Stata 11.0 was used for data analysis. Results In total, 11 articles, which included 802 patients, were included in our meta-analysis. Among these patients, 398 patients were in the high-dose group (20 mg/day) and 404 patients were in the conventional dose group (10 mg/day). Meta-analysis results showed that compared with the conventional dose group: 1) The loading dose of rosuvastatin can significantly reduce the hs-CRP level after PCI, including at 24 hours (SMD = -0.65, 95%CI -0.84 ~ -0.47, P = 0.000), 48 hours (SMD = -0.40, 95%CI -0.68 ~ -0.11, P = 0.006), and four weeks (SMD = -1.64, 95%CI -2.01 ~ -1.26, P = 0.000). 2) The loading dose of rosuvastatin can significantly reduce the levels of LDL-C and cTnT, including the level of LDL-C at 30 d after PCI (SMD = -0.89, 95%CI -1.10 ~ -0.69, P = 0.000), and the level of cTnT at 24 h after PCI (SMD = -1.93, 95%CI -2.28 ~ -1.59, P = 0.000), and increase the level of HDL-C at 48 h after PCI (SMD = 0.61, 95%CI 0.34 ~ 0.88, P = 0.000). 3) The loading dose of rosuvastatin can significantly reduce the levels of TG and TC, including the level of TG at 30 d after PCI (SMD = -0.94, 95%CI -1.17 ~ -0.71, P = 0.000), the level of TC at 48 h after PCI (SMD = -0.35, 95%CI -0.68 ~ -0.01, P = 0.043), and the level of TC at 30 d after PCI (SMD = -0.77, 95%CI -0.98 ~ -0.56, P = 0.000). Conclusions Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed that, compared with the conventional dose, the loading dose of rosuvastatin was more beneficial to patients with ACS in China and is suitable for clinical application. Due to the limitations of the quality and quantity of included articles, this conclusion still needs to be confirmed by multicenter clinical trials.

Meta-Analysis of Strategies for Patients With Multivessel Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

In a recent issue of JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, Elgendy et al. (1) present the results of a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of various revascularization strategies in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel coronary artery disease, using major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) as the primary outcome and 10 randomized controlled trials as the data source. As highlighted by Elgendy et al., complete revascularization (CR) at the index procedure or as a staged procedure was markedly better than culprit-only revascularization (COR) in reducing the risk for MACEs, which was driven by significantly fewer urgent revascularizations. In this updated meta-analysis, CR was defined as revascularization to nonculprit vessel lesions either at the time of the index procedure or as a staged procedure (during the hospital or after discharge). The result of the pairwise meta-analysis suggested that CR was associated with reduced MACEs compared with COR (risk ratio [RR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42 to 0.77; I 1⁄4 56.6%). Indeed, the nonculprit lesions in acute coronary syndrome have more vulnerable plaque components, which are associated with adverse clinical outcomes (2,3). Furthermore, in the CvLPRIT (Complete Versus Lesion-Only Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, the risk for MACEs in the CR group was significantly lower than in the COR group, and the Kaplan-Meier curves showed early separation (4). Similarly, in the PRAMI (Preventive Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, the Kaplan-Meier curves for MACEs also showed early divergence (5). In this context, CR during the index hospitalization is not as effectiveness as delayed staged outpatient CR, which may explain the observed statistical heterogeneity in the comparison of CR versus COR for the risk for MACEs (I 1⁄4 56.6%) and urgent revascularization (I 1⁄4 56.0%). To support this hypothesis, we categorized the CR into early CR and delayed CR. Early CR was defined as percutaneous coronary intervention confined to the nonculprit artery at an index procedure or during hospitalization. Delayed CR was defined as percutaneous coronary intervention confined to the nonculprit artery after discharge. The results showed that early CR reduced the risk for MACEs compared with COR (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.60; p < 0.0001; I 1⁄4 0%) (Figure 1). Importantly, no statistical heterogeneity was noted between the studies. Moreover, the early CR group had a lower risk for urgent revascularization (RR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.48; p < 0.001; I 1⁄4 0%) and reinfarction (RR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.91; p 1⁄4 0.018; I 1⁄4 0%) than the COR group. No difference was observed with regard to all-cause mortality (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.19; p 1⁄4 0.241; I 1⁄4 0%). Similarly, no statistical heterogeneity was observed in these comparisons. In conclusion, the timing of staged percutaneous coronary intervention procedures may contribute to the prognosis of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary disease, which may be the source of statistical heterogeneity in the comparison of CR versus COR for the risk for MACEs and urgent revascularization.