Do Patients With Non-Viable Myocardium From Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Benefit From Revascularization? A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial viability assessment is used to select patients who will derive the greatest benefit from revascularization. It remains controversial whether revascularization only benefits patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who have viable myocardium. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare mortality between patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and non-viable myocardium who underwent revascularization and those who underwent medical therapy alone. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched using PubMed to retrieve studies published up to December 2021. Inclusion criteria were 1. studies that evaluated the impact of revascularization (revascularization group) versus medical therapy alone (control group) following myocardial viability assessment; 2. patients who had coronary artery disease that was amenable to coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention; and 3. patients who had non-viable myocardium. The main outcome measure was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were included, evaluating 1363 patients with non-viable myocardium, of whom 501 patients underwent revascularization and 862 patients received medical therapy alone. There was a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.76, 95 % CI: 0.62-0.93, I2 = 0) in the revascularization group compared to the control group. There was no association between the type of viability imaging modality and the risk of all-cause mortality (P-interaction = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest a benefit from revascularization compared to medical therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy despite the lack of myocardial viability.

Clinical impact of pulmonary artery catheter in patients with cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) for the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the association between PAC use and mortality among patients with CS. METHODS: Published studies of patients with CS treated with or without PAC hemodynamic guidance were retrieved from MEDLINE and PubMed databases from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was mortality, which was defined as a combination of in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes assessed 30-day and in-hospital mortality separately. To assess the quality of nonrandomized studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), a well-established scoring system was used. We analyzed outcomes for each study using NOS with a threshold value of >6, indicating high quality. We also performed analyses based on the countries of the studies conducted. RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 930,530 patients with CS were analyzed. Of these, 85,769 patients were in the PAC-treated group, and 844,761 patients did not receive a PAC. PAC use was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality (PAC: 4.6 % to 41.5 % vs control: 18.8 % to 51.0 %) (OR 0.63, 95 % CI: 0.41-0.97, I2 = 0.96). Subgroup analyses demonstrated no difference in the risk of mortality between NOS ≥ 6 studies and NOS < 6 studies (p-interaction = 0.57), 30-day and in-hospital mortality (p-interaction = 0.83), or the country of origin of studies (p-interaction = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PAC in patients with CS may be associated with decreased mortality. These data support the need for a randomized controlled trial testing the utility of PAC use in CS.