Deferred Versus Immediate Stenting in Patients With ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Background A number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of deferred stenting vs immediate stenting in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction, but the findings were not consistent across these studies. This meta‐analysis aims to assess optimal treatment strategies in patient with...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the American Heart Association 2017-03, Vol.6 (3), p.n/a
Main Authors: Qiao, Jianzhong, Pan, Lingxin, Zhang, Bin, Wang, Jie, Zhao, Yongyan, Yang, Ru, Du, Huiling, Jiang, Jie, Jin, Conghai, Xiong, Enlai
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Angioplasty - methods
deferred stenting
Hemorrhage - epidemiology
Humans
immediate stenting
meta‐analysis
Odds Ratio
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods
ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction - physiopathology
ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction - therapy
Stents
Stroke Volume
ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction
Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Time Factors
Time-to-Treatment
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background A number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of deferred stenting vs immediate stenting in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction, but the findings were not consistent across these studies. This meta‐analysis aims to assess optimal treatment strategies in patient with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction. Methods and Results We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies that assessed deferred vs immediate stenting in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction. Nine studies including 1456 patients in randomized controlled trials and 719 patients in observational studies were included in the meta‐analysis. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of no‐ or slow‐reflow between deferred stenting and immediate stenting in randomized controlled trials (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95%CI 0.17‐1.53, P=0.23, I2=70%) but not in observational studies (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.06‐0.31, P
ISSN:2047-9980
2047-9980
DOI:10.1161/JAHA.116.004838