Key result
Administration of G-CSF after acute myocardial infarction did not significantly increase diameter stenosis immediately after PCI (12.3% vs 10.3%, p=0.32) or late lumen loss (p=0.11).
Why the study?
Does G-CSF administration after acute myocardial infarction increase the risk of coronary re-stenosis or adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing PCI?
Meta-Analysis (n=106)
Does G-CSF administration after acute myocardial infarction increase the risk of coronary re-stenosis or adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing PCI?
Administration of G-CSF after acute myocardial infarction does not appear to increase the risk of coronary re-stenosis, stent thrombosis, or re-infarction.
G-CSF post-AMI does not increase restenosis risk after PCI; confirms vascular safety and supports further regenerative therapy trials.
BACKGROUND: Because of the recently published results of the MAGIC study there is confusion as to whether administration of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) after acute myocardial infarction (MI) should be regarded as a potentially harmful treatment. This meta-analysis of appropriate clinical studies is intended to show the impact of G-CSF given after MI on aggravated incidence of coronary re-stenosis or progression of coronary lesions. METHODS: We used a fixed effects model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method to combine results from the different trials. These studies provided the basis for the current analysis comprising 106 patients of whom 62 were subjected to G-CSF treatment. RESULTS: Minimum lumen diameter (MLD) measured immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was similar in both groups with a diameter stenosis of 12.3% (SD 9.5%) in the G-CSF group and 10.3% (8.5%) in the control group (p = 0.32). At follow-up, both MLD and percentage stenosis were not different between G-CSF-treated and control patients. Subsequently, averaged late lumen loss revealed similar results and no differences between groups (p = 0.11), and neither stent thrombosis nor re-infarction in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis of clinical reports fails to justify an elevated risk for coronary re-stenosis after PCI in acute MI or adverse events following G-CSF in the setting of MI when used after state of the art treatment in carefully conducted clinical protocols.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
İnce et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis in acute myocardial infarction (n=106). granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) vs. control was evaluated on diameter stenosis immediately after PCI (p=0.32). Administration of G-CSF after acute myocardial infarction did not significantly increase diameter stenosis immediately after PCI (12.3% vs 10.3%, p=0.32) or late lumen loss (p=0.11).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: