Deferred Versus Immediate Stenting in Patients With ST–Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta–Analysis [Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis]

BackgroundA 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 ResultsWe 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

Source: JAHA:Journal of the American Heart Association - March 8, 2017 Category: Cardiology Authors: Qiao, J., Pan, L., Zhang, B., Wang, J., Zhao, Y., Yang, R., Du, H., Jiang, J., Jin, C., Xiong, E. Tags: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Systematic Review and Meta ‐ Analysis Source Type: research