RESUMEN
Sacubitril/valsartan is a drug commonly prescribed for the management of hypertension. However, the complete understanding of its efficacy and safety as an antihypertensive agent remains a subject of ongoing investigation. To address this gap, a meta-analysis was conducted to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in relation to olmesartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). A thorough search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that could contribute to this meta-analysis. The selected studies were evaluated for their efficacy and safety parameters, including mean sitting and ambulatory blood pressure measurements, common side effects, adverse events, and drug discontinuation rates. A total of eight studies, involving 4488 hypertensive patients, were included in this analysis. Among the participants, 63.5% were administered sacubitril/valsartan, while 36.5% received olmesartan. The analysis revealed significant changes in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MsSBP), mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MsDBP), and mean sitting pulse pressure (MsPP) favoring sacubitril/valsartan, with p-values <0.00001, 0.07, and <0.00001, respectively. Additionally, sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated a significant reduction in mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (MaSBP), mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (MaDBP), and mean ambulatory pulse pressure (MaPP) with p-values of 0.001, 0.001, and 0.02, respectively. However, it is important to note that safety outcomes indicated that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with slightly less favorable results compared to olmesartan. This meta-analysis highlights that sacubitril/valsartan exhibits superior efficacy in reducing blood pressure parameters compared to olmesartan in hypertensive patients. Nevertheless, its safety profile appears to be slightly less favorable. To reinforce these findings and provide more robust evidence, further studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted in the future. This comprehensive review serves as a valuable resource for healthcare professionals and researchers seeking to make informed decisions regarding antihypertensive treatment options.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Owing to its large area of supply, left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) has the highest mortality rate among coronary artery lesions, resulting in debate about its optimal revascularization technique. This meta-analysis compares percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of LMCAD. Method: MEDLINE, TRIP, and Cochrane Central databases were queried from their inception until 25 April 2021, to determine MACCE (major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events), all-cause mortality, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke rates post-revascularization for different follow-ups. 7 RCTs and 50 observational studies having 56,701 patients were included. A random-effects model was used with effect sizes calculated as odds ratios (odds ratio, OR). Results: In the short term (1 year), PCI had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.58, 95% CI 2.47-5.20; p < 0.00001), but lower strokes (OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81; p = 0.002). In the intermediate term (2-5 years), PCI had significantly higher rates of repeat revascularizations (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 2.72-4.44; p < 0.00001) and MI (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.17-1.64; p = 0.0002), but significantly lower strokes (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.42-0.70; p < 0.0001). PCI also had significantly higher repeat revascularizations (OR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.89-3.52; p < 0.00001) in the long term (≥5 years), while in the very long term (≥10 years), PCI had significantly lower all-cause mortalities (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.96; p = 0.02). Conclusion: PCI was safer than CABG for patients with stroke for most follow-ups, while CABG was associated with lower repeat revascularizations. However, further research is required to determine PCI's safety over CABG for reducing post-surgery MI.