RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease is unclear. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for treating these patients. METHODS: Searches of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, clinicaltrial.gov, and the reference lists of relevant papers were performed covering the period between the year 2000 and March 20, 2017. A pairwise analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to compare the effectiveness of early complete revascularization (CR) during the index hospitalization, delayed CR, and culprit only revascularization (COR). The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which were defined as the composite of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were the rates of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and repeat revascularization. This study is registered at PROSPERO under registration number CRD42017059980. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,170 patients were identified. A pairwise meta-analysis showed that compared with COR, early CR was associated with significantly decreased risks of MACE (relative risk [RR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.56), MI (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.83), and repeat revascularization (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27-0.46) but not of all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.52-1.16). These results were confirmed by trial sequential analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that early CR had the highest probability of being the first treatment option during MACE (89.2%), MI (83.3%), and repeat revascularization (80.4%). CONCLUSION: Early CR during the index hospitalization was markedly superior to COR with respect to reducing the risk of MACE, as CR significantly decreased the risks of MI and repeat revascularization compared with COR. However, further study is warranted to determine whether CR during the index hospitalization can improve survival in patients with concurrent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. The optimal timing of CR remains inconclusive considering the small number of studies and patients included in the analysis comparing early and delayed CR.
RESUMEN
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.