RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In severe cases of coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention provide promising results. The stent used could be a drug-eluting stent (DES) or a titanium-nitride-oxide coated stent (TiNOS). AIM: To compare the 5-year effectiveness and safety of the two stent types. METHODS: The following systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines, and PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception till August 2023. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death or MI, and ischemia-driven total lesion revascularization (ID-TLR). RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials (RCT), which analyzed a sum total of 3045 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after a median follow-up time of 5 years were included. Though statistically insignificant, an increase in the ID-TLR was observed in patients receiving TiNOSs vs DESs. In addition, MI, cardiac death and MI, and definite stent thrombosis (DST) were significantly decreased in the TiNOS arm. Baseline analysis revealed no significant results with meta-regression presenting non-ST elevated MI (NSTEMI) as a statistically significant covariate in the outcome of MACE. CONCLUSION: TiNOS was found to be superior to DES in terms of MI, cardiac death or MI, and DST outcomes, however, the effect of the two stent types on ID-TLR and MACE was not significant. A greater number of studies are required to establish an accurate comparison of patient outcomes in TiNOS and DES.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Propofol has become the sedative of choice for endoscopy and colonoscopy. However, it has shown associations with various adverse effects, specifically in the geriatric population. In contrast, remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine, demonstrating a superior clinical safety profile. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to clarify the efficacy and safety of remimazolam versus propofol in elderly patients (≥ 60 years) undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic and colonoscopy procedures. METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were explored from inception till January 7, 2024. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials (RoB-2) was utilized to evaluate the quality of each included study reported in this meta-analysis. RESULTS: Seven randomized control trials were included, resulting in the pooling of 1,466 patients (remimazolam: 731 patients; propofol: 735 patients). Propofol demonstrated a significantly lower time to loss of consciousness (P < 0.00001, 4 studies, 784 patients) and a greater sedation success after first dose (P = 0.05, 5 studies, 1,271 patients). Remimazolam reported a significantly lower risk of bradycardia (P = 0.02, 5 studies, 1,323 patients), hypoxemia (P < 0.00001, 6 studies, 1,389 patients), and pain on injection site (P < 0.00001, 5 studies, 1,184 patients). No statistically significant differences in sedation time, number of supplemental doses, procedural parameters, and other adverse outcomes were reported. CONCLUSION: As per the results of our analyses, propofol demonstrated comparatively superior efficacy, however, remimazolam demonstrated comparatively superior safety. The debatable evidence generated from this meta-analysis may not currently be powerful enough to advocate for the use of remimazolam in elderly patients undergoing gastrointestinal procedures; hence, further comprehensive studies are necessary in order to arrive at a robust conclusion.
