Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Percutaneous coronary intervention (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2) (remove)
Background: Kidney transplant recipients (KTR) reflect a high-risk population for coronary artery disease (CAD). CAD is the most common cause for morbidity and mortality in this population. However, only few data are available on the favourable revascularization strategy for these patients as they were often excluded from studies and not mentioned in guidelines.
Methods: This retrospective single-centre study includes patients with a history of kidney transplantation undergoing myocardial revascularization for multivessel or left main CAD by either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, n = 27 patients) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG, n = 24 patients) at University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany, between 2005 and 2015.
Results: In-hospital mortality was higher in the CABG group (20.8% vs. 14.8% PCI group; p = 0.45). In Kaplan-Meier analysis, one-year-survival showed better outcome in the PCI group (85.2% vs. 75%). After four years, outcome was comparable between both strategies (PCI 66.5% vs. CABG 70.8%; log-rank p = 0.94).
Acute kidney injury (AKI), classified by Acute Kidney Injury Network, was observed more frequently after CABG (58.3% vs. 18.5%; p < 0.01). After one year, graft survival was 95.7% in the PCI group and 94.1% in the CABG group. Four year follow-up showed comparable graft survival in both groups (76.8% PCI and 77.0% CABG; p = 0.78).
Conclusion: In this retrospective single-centre study of KTR requiring myocardial revascularization, PCI seems to be superior to CABG with regard to in-hospital mortality, acute kidney injury and one-year-survival. To optimise treatment of these high-risk patients, larger-scaled studies are urgently warranted.
Aims: Of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), approximately 10% undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We studied the safety and efficacy of dual vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (DAT vs. TAT) in this population.
Methods and results: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Web of Science, and relevant meeting abstracts for Phase 3, randomized trials that compared DAT vs. TAT in patients with AF following PCI. Four trials including 5317 patients were included, of whom 3039 (57%) received DAT. Compared with the TAT arm, Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding showed a reduction by 47% in the DAT arm [4.3% vs. 9.0%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.36–0.85, I2 = 42.9%]. In addition, there was no difference in the trial-defined major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (10.4% vs. 10.0%, HR 0.85, 95% CrI 0.48–1.29, I2 = 58.4%), or in individual outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke between the two arms.
Conclusion: Compared with TAT, DAT shows a reduction in TIMI major or minor bleeding by 47% with comparable outcomes of MACE. Our findings support the concept that DAT may be a better option than TAT in many patients with AF following PCI.