Cargando…

Effects of ischaemic postconditioning on outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of ischaemic postconditioning (IPC) therapy on hard clinical endpoints in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). DESIGN: Systematic review and me...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xing, Zhenhua, Tang, Liang, Huang, Jiabing, Peng, Xiaofan, Hu, Xinqun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6475223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30904835
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022509
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of ischaemic postconditioning (IPC) therapy on hard clinical endpoints in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of IPC on the outcomes of patients with STEMI. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for relevant articles published prior to May 1, 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials comparing conventional PPCI to PPCI combined with IPC in STEMI patients were included. The primary endpoint was heart failure. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, heart failure and MI. The Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 4.2 was used to assess the risk of bias. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Relevant data were extracted by two independent investigators. We derived pooled risk ratios (RRs) with random effects models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: Ten studies that had enrolled 3137 patients were included. PPCI combined with IPC failed to reduce heart failure (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.26, p=0.47; absolute risk: 3.64% in the IPC group and 4.11% in the PPCI only group), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.27, p=0.68; absolute risk: 5.07% in the IPC group and 5.27% in the PPCI onlygroup), MACE (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.32, p=0.69; absolute risk: 9.37% in the IPC group and 8.93% in the PPCI only group), cardiac death (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.93, p=0.24; absolute risk: 4.28% in the IPC group and 3.25% in the PPCI only group) and MI (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.38 to 3.12, p=0.88; absolute risk: 3.61% in the IPC group and 3.44% in the PPCI only group). CONCLUSIONS: IPC combined with PPCI does not reduce heart failure, MACE and all-cause mortality compared with traditional PPCI in patients with STEMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017063959