RESUMO
Background: Angiographic and procedural characteristics stratified by frailty status are not known in older patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). We evaluated angiographic and procedural characteristics in older adults with NSTEACS by frailty category, as well as associations of baseline and residual SYNTAX scores with long-term outcomes. Methods: In this study, 271 NSTEACS patients aged ≥75 years underwent coronary angiography. Frailty was assessed using the Fried criteria. Angiographic analysis was performed using QAngio® XA Medis in a core laboratory. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) consisted of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke or transient ischaemic attack, repeat unplanned revascularisation and significant bleeding. Results: Mean (±SD) patient age was 80.5 ± 4.9 years. Compared with robust patients, patients with frailty had more severe culprit lesion calcification (OR 5.40; 95% CI [1.75-16.8]; p=0.03). In addition, patients with frailty had a smaller mean improvement in culprit lesion stenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (50.6%; 95% CI [45.7-55.6]) than robust patients (58.6%; 95% CI [53.5-63.7]; p=0.042). There was no association between frailty phenotype and completeness of revascularisation (OR 0.83; 95% CI [0.36-1.93]; p=0.67). A high baseline SYNTAX score (≥33) was associated with adjusted (age and sex) 5-year MACE (HR 1.40; 95% CI [1.08-1.81]; p=0.01), as was a high residual SYNTAX score (≥8; adjusted HR 1.22; 95% CI [1.00-1.49]; p=0.047). Conclusion: Frail adults presenting with NSTEACS have more severe culprit lesion calcification. Frail adults were just as likely as robust patients to receive complete revascularisation. Baseline and residual SYNTAX score were associated with MACE at 5 years.
RESUMO
Both cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) have been shown to be effective methods for removing small colorectal polyps, but the optimal method for achieving complete resection remains unclear. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic search of relevant articles using databases such as PubMed, ProQuest, and EBSCOhost. The search criteria included randomized controlled trials that compared CSP and HSP for small colorectal polyps ≤10 mm and the articles were screened based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were analyzed using RevMan software (version 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom), and meta-analysis was performed with outcomes measured using pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to calculate the OR. We selected a total of 14 randomized controlled trials involving 11601 polyps for analysis. Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incomplete resection rate between CSP and HSP (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.88-1.73, p-value: 0.27; I2: 51%), en bloc resection rate (OR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.38-1.13; p: 0.13; I2: 60%), and polyp retrieval rate (OR: 0.97; 95%CI: 0.59-1.57; p: 0.89; I2: 17%). For safety endpoints, there is no statistically significant difference in intraprocedural bleeding rate between CSP and HSP per patient analysis (OR: 2.37, 95% CI: 0.74-7.54; p: 0.95; I2: 74%) and per polyp basis (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.72-4.72; p: 0.20; I2: 85%). CSP had lower OR for the delayed bleeding outcome when compared with the HSP group per patient basis (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.2-0.86; p: 0.02; I2: 25%), but not in the per polyp analysis (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.12-3; p: 0.53; I2: 0%). Total polypectomy time was significantly shorter in the CSP group (mean difference: -0.81 minutes; 95% CI: -0.96, -0.66; p:<0.00001; I2: 0%). Thus, CSP is both an efficacious and safe method for removing small colorectal polyps. Therefore, it can be recommended as a suitable alternative to HSP for the removal of small colorectal polyps. However, more studies are necessary to evaluate any long-term differences between the two methods such as polyp recurrence rates.
