For acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the choice of the duration and kind of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) offering the most accurate balance between ischemic and bleeding risk remains unknown.A network meta-analysis was performed including all Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing different DAPT regimens and duration in ACS patients undergoing PCI. Trial-defined MACE and major bleedings were the primary endpoints. Stroke, stent thrombosis (ST), all-cause and cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI) represented secondary endpoints.13 RCTs encompassing 46145 patients were included. Mean age was 62 (61-64) years old, 42% being admitted with STEMI, 33% with NSTEMI and 25% with UA. The competitive arms were: clopidogrel and aspirin for 12 months (6 arms/18183 patients), clopidogrel and aspirin for 6 months (4/3329), clopidogrel and aspirin >12 months (3/2238), ticagrelor and aspirin for 12 months (6/12942) and prasugrel and aspirin for 12 months (3/9453). Trial-defined MACE and major bleedings, stroke and death were similar among the different arms. DAPT with prasugrel and aspirin for 12 months reduced MI compared to aspirin and clopidogrel for 12 months (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54.0.94) and reduced the risk of ST compared to ticagrelor (OR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.90). Both prasugrel and ticagrelor reduced ST as compared to clopidogrel and aspirin for 12 months.Different DAPT strategies yield similar risk of MACE, major bleeding, death and stroke in ACS patients. Prasugrel and aspirin for 12 months proved to be the most effective strategy regarding ST and MI.
Objective: Automated office blood pressure (AOBP), a fully automated unattended BP measurement technique represents an attractive alternative or integrative option to assess patient's blood pressure (BP) status. However, the lack of strong evidences to establish a threshold value for hypertension diagnosis limits its use in clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to compare AOBP with other BP measurement techniques such as physician's office BP, non-physician's office BP, daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and home BP monitoring (HBPM), through a meta-analysis. Design and method: We searched PubMed database for articles published up to April 2018; eligible studies compared AOBP with office and/or out-of-office measurement techniques, reporting the BP differences or BP values obtained and using one of the three validated devices for performing AOBP measurements. Results: Of the 317 potential reports evaluated for eligibility, twenty-six studies, for a total of 7,116 patients, were included in the analysis. Unattended AOBP values were lower than physician (systolic blood pressure, SBP −10.48 mmHg [95% CI −13.15 to −7.81] / diastolic blood pressure, DBP −4.44 mmHg [95% CI −6.07 to −2.80]) and non-physician office ones (SBP −6.89 mmHg [95% CI −8.75 to −5.04] / DBP −3.82 mmHg [95% CI −4.86 to −2.78]). No significant differences were found between unattended AOBP and daytime ABPM (SBP −1.85 [95% CI −4.50 to 0.79] / DBP 0.12 [95% CI −1.42 to 1.66]) and HBPM (SBP −2.65 [95% CI −8.42 to 3.12]) / DBP −1.67 [95% CI −4.20 to 0.87]). Subgroup analysis showed that AOBP SBP values measured with BpTRU, were between 5 to 10 mmHg lower than those measured using the other two devices, while differences in diastolic BP were smaller. Conclusions: AOBP readings did not differ significantly from out-of-office blood pressure, still remaining an office technique; it may reduce the risk of hypertension over-diagnosis and over-treatment and overcome some of office BP limitations, including the white-coat effect. Therefore, based on the results of this meta-analysis, AOBP threshold for the diagnosis of hypertension, should be considered the same as for daytime ABPM and HBPM.
The efficacy and safety of different statins for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients in the primary prevention setting remain to be established. In the present meta-analysis, 18 studies with 736 HIV-positive patients receiving combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) and treated with statins in the primary prevention setting were included (21.0% women, median age 44.1 years old). The primary endpoint was the effect of statin therapy on total cholesterol (TC) levels. Rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 10 mg provided the largest reduction in TC levels [mean -1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-1.99, -1.35) mmol/L; and mean -1.44, 95% CI (-1.85, -1.02) mmol/L, respectively]. Atorvastatin 80 mg and simvastatin 20 mg provided the largest reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) [mean -2.10, 95% CI (-3.39, -0.81) mmol/L; and mean -1.57, 95% CI (-2.67, -0.47) mmol/L, respectively]. Pravastatin 10-20 mg [mean 0.24, 95% CI (0.10, 0.38) mmol/L] and atorvastatin 10 mg [mean 0.15, 95% CI (0.007, 0.23) mmol/L] had the largest increase in high-density lipoprotein, whereas atorvastatin 80 mg [mean -0.60, 95% CI (-1.09, -0.11) mmol/L] and simvastatin 20 mg [mean -0.61, 95% CI (-1.14, -0.08) mmol/L] had the largest reduction in triglycerides. The mean discontinuation rate was 0.12 per 100 person-years [95% CI (0.05, 0.20)], and was higher with atorvastatin 10 mg [26.5 per 100 person-years, 95% CI (-13.4, 64.7)]. Meta-regression revealed that nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors-sparing regimens were associated with reduced efficacy for statin's ability to lower TC. Statin therapy significantly lowers plasma TC and LDL levels in HIV-positive patients and is associated with low rates of adverse events. Statins are effective and safe when dose-adjusted for drug-drug interactions with cART.
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) for the evaluation of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, and CENTRAL were searched for studies reporting accuracy of CCTA for the evaluation of obstructive CAD compared with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the reference standard. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. A bivariate random effects model was used to analyze, pool, and plot the diagnostic performance measurements across studies. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive ( + LR) and negative (-LR) likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and hierarchical summary ROC curve (HSROC) were evaluated. Prospero registration number: CRD42021252527.Fourteen studies (2533 patients) were included. In the intention-to-diagnose patient-level analysis, sensitivity and specificity for CCTA were 97% (95% CI: 94-98%) and 68% (95% CI: 56-68%), respectively, and + LR and -LR were 3.0 (95% CI: 2.1-4.3) and 0.05 (95% CI: 0.03 - 0.09), with DOR equal to 60 (95% CI: 30-121). The area under the HSROC curve was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98). No significant difference in sensitivity was found between single-heartbeat and other CT scanners (96% (95% CI: 90 - 99%) vs. 97% (95% CI: 94-98%) respectively; p = 0.37), whereas the specificity of single-heartbeat scanners was higher (82% (95% CI: 66-92%) vs. 60% (95% CI: 46 - 72%) respectively; p < 0.0001). Routine CCTA in the pre-TAVI workup could save 41% (95% CI: 34 - 47%) of ICAs if a disease prevalence of 40% is assumed.CCTA proved an excellent diagnostic accuracy for assessing obstructive CAD in patients referred for TAVI; the use of single-heartbeat CT scanners can further improve these findings.• CCTA proved to have an excellent diagnostic accuracy for assessing obstructive CAD in patients referred for TAVI. • Routine CCTA in the pre-TAVI workup could save more than 40% of ICAs. • Single-heartbeat CT scanners had higher specificity than others in the assessment of obstructive CAD in patients referred for TAVI.
Abstract Background The clinical value of high-risk coronary plaque characteristics (CPCs) to inform intensified medical therapy or revascularization of non-flow-limiting lesion remains uncertain. Purpose We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the prognostic impact of CPCs on patient-level and lesion-level major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE). Methods We systematically reviewed MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database for studies evaluating the association of CPC with patient-level and lesion-level MACE. CPCs included high plaque burden, low minimal lumen area, thin cap fibroatheroma, high lipid core burden index, low attenuation plaque, spotty calcification, napkin ring sign, or positive remodelling. Results Thirty studies (21 retrospective, 9 prospective) with 30,369 patients were included. CPCs were evaluated by invasive intravascular techniques in 9 studies (optical coherence tomography=4, intravascular ultrasound imaging=3, near-infrared spectroscopy intravascular ultrasound imaging=2) and by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in 21 studies. CPCs significantly predicted patient-level and lesion-level MACE in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. For each CPC, the risks were higher for lesion-level (HR range 3.2–16.8) as compared with patient-level MACE (HR range 1.8–4.1). Accuracy was modest to good for most CPCs at the patient-level (AUC for MACE ranging between 0.53 and 0.84) and moderate to good for most CPCs at the lesion-level (AUC for MACE ranging between 0.71 and 0.83). Plaques with more than one CPC had the highest accuracy for lesion-level MACE (AUC 0.87, 95% CI 0.84–0.90). The pooled sensitivities of CPCs for lesion-level MACE ranged between 40% and 63% and specificities between 73% and 98%. As the pooled prevalence of CPCs among plaques was low (3% to 28%), the estimated positive predictive values for lesion-level MACE were modest (range 1% to 26%). Conclusions CCTA and intravascular imaging characterization of CPCs identifies high-risk atherosclerotic plaques that place lesions and patients at risk for future MACE, albeit with modest sensitivity and positive predictive value (PROSPERO identifier: CRD42021251810). Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
