Short duration of dual antiplatelet therapy following complex percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: The optimal composition and duration of antiplatelet therapy after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare 1-3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by monotherapy vs. 12 months of DAPT. METHOD: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried for studies comparing 1-3 months of DAPT followed by monotherapy vs. 12 months of DAPT in the outcomes of complex PCI from inception through January 2023. Outcomes of interest included major bleeding, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, and stroke. RESULTS: Compared to 12 months, 1-3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy had a weak association with less major bleeding (OR 0.67; 95 % CI, 0.44-1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 28 %). There were no significant differences between the shorter and longer antiplatelet therapy in terms of all-cause mortality (OR 0.83; 95 % CI, 0.59-1.16; p = 0.21; I2 = 17 %), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.87; 95 % CI, 0.53-0.42; p = 0.50; I2 = 0), MI (OR 0.97; 95 % CI, 0.69-1.35; p = 0.82; I2 = 32 %), stent thrombosis (OR 1.17, 95 % CI, 0.77-1.76; p = 0.38; I2 = 0 %), target vessel revascularization (OR 1.05, 95 % CI, 0.58-1.89; p = 0.82; I2 = 64 %), or stroke (OR 1.10, 95 % CI, 0.55-2.17; p = 0.37; I2 = 7 %);. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing complex PCI, DAPT for 1-3 months may be associated with less major bleeding but similar rates of cardiovascular events (death, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and revascularization) compared to DAPT for 12 months.

Sex difference in outcomes and management of cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Sex differences in the outcomes and management of cardiogenic shock are not well established. The primary objective of this study is to investigate the differences inik cardiogenic shock outcomes between males and females. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Studies were searched via the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to December 2022. RESULTS: The analysis included 24 studies comprising 1,567,660 patients. Compared to females, males with CS had a significantly lower risk of in-hospital all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.88, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.90, p < 0.001) and 1-year mortality (RR 0.90, 95 % CI 0.89-0.92, p < 0.001). Males were more likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (RR 1.21, 95 % CI 1.13-1.31, p < 0.0001) and intra-aortic balloon pump placement (RR 1.21, 95 % CI 1.11-1.32, p < 0.0001), with no significant sex differences in the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella. During the index hospitalization, males were at higher risk of arrhythmias (RR 1.18, 95 % CI 1.05-1.34, p = 0.003) and less likely to develop acute kidney injury (RR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.79-0.94, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Men have a lower all-cause mortality risk in cardiogenic shock. Addressing disparities in management is crucial for improving CS outcomes, especially for women.