AI Article Synopsis
- Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the top cause of death in the U.S., and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the standard treatment following acute CAD episodes.
- This review looked at the impact of complete revascularization (CR) versus incomplete revascularization (IR) in older adults, who are at higher cardiovascular risk.
- The analysis of 15 studies found no significant advantage of CR over IR in reducing major health issues like myocardial infarction or overall mortality in patients aged 70 and older.
Article Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of mortality in the United States, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is established as the standard after an acute episode of CAD. This review assessed the use of complete revascularization (CR) or incomplete revascularization (IR) in older adults, who present a higher cardiovascular risk. The aim is to define the effectiveness of both procedures in this population, focusing on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality (ACM). A literature search identified 15 studies, evaluated using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions I (ROBINS-I) tool for bias risk. Despite positive results in recent studies, this meta-analysis does not show the superiority of CR, demonstrating a lack of benefit in reducing mortality, myocardial infarction, and adverse events in the ≥ 70-year-old age group.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11660011 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.74068 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!