Key result
Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis had an overall 30.0% MACE rate (95% CI 25.0-34.9%), while intracoronary radiation showed a 16.9% advantage in MACE-free survival over balloon angioplasty.
Why the study?
Does the treatment modality affect the rate of major adverse cardiac events in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis?
Population
3,012 patients with coronary in-stent restenosis across 28 studies
Comparison
Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis vs Comparison between different treatment modalities
Design
Meta-analysis
Follow-up
9+/-4 months
Authors
Loading...
Coronary in-stent restenosis treatment carries 30% MACE risk; confirms intracoronary radiation's MACE-free survival advantage over balloon angioplasty.
Meta-Analysis (n=3,012)
Does the treatment modality affect the rate of major adverse cardiac events in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis?
p-value: p=0.0001 for heterogeneity
Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis carries an overall 30% MACE rate, though intracoronary radiation may offer improved MACE-free survival compared to balloon angioplasty for diffuse restenosis.
PW Radke (2003) conducted a meta-analysis in coronary in-stent restenosis (n=3,012). Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis vs. Balloon angioplasty (for intracoronary radiation comparison) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) defined by death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (95% CI 25.0-34.9, p=0.0001 for heterogeneity). Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis had an overall 30.0% MACE rate (95% CI 25.0-34.9%), while intracoronary radiation showed a 16.9% advantage in MACE-free survival over balloon angioplasty.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: