Cardiac shock wave therapy improves myocardial perfusion and preserves left ventricular mechanics in patients with refractory angina: A study with speckle tracking echocardiography

Effect of cardiac shock wave therapy plus optimal medical therapy on rehospitalization in patients with severe coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Objective

Several small sample-sized clinical studies have demonstrated that cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) might reduce the risk of rehospitalization in patients with severe coronary artery disease (CAD). However, other observational studies did not reported that clinical benefit of CSWT. Therefore, the effect of CSWT plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) on rehospitalization is still controversial.

Methods

We performed an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies identified in systematic searches of Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane library, the ClinicalTrials.gov website and Chinese SinoMed Database (up to December 2021). Primary endpoint was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs, the composite outcome of mortality, coronary artery revascularization, and rehospitalization). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were used to identify possible contributors to between-study variances in the HDRS. Required information size (RIS) was calculated with trial sequential analysis (TSA).

Results

A total of 11 RCTs and 5 prospective cohort studies involving 1,149 patients with a mean follow-up of 10.3 months (range 3-72) months were included. Overall, CSWT plus OMT significantly decreased the rate of MACEs compared with the OMT group (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.53), which was mainly attributed to markedly lower risk of rehospitalization (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.51). Subgroup analysis showed that the pooled RRs for MACEs was significantly lower in studies enrolling patients with higher baseline Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class (≥2.2) (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.50) or studies with short follow-up period (followed ≤ 6 months, RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24-0.64; followed 7-12 months, RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.54) or studies with HF with reduced ejection fraction (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.72) or with preserved ejection fraction (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.29-0.56). TSA showed that The RIS for MACE was 935, and the accrued information size was 577.

Conclusion

Cardiac shock wave therapy plus OMT could decrease the rate of rehospitalization among patients with severe CAD. However, this result must be interpreted with caution, for the evidence supporting the use of CSWT for severe CAD is limited by the small sample size and short follow-up period of previous studies. Larger RCTs with longer follow-up are warranted to confirm these findings.

Systematic review registration

[https://inplasy.com/], identifier [INPLASY202210103].

Efficacy and safety of cardiac shock wave therapy for patients with severe coronary artery disease: A randomized, double-blind control study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies proved the efficacy of cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) for coronary artery disease (CAD) patients who are not candidate for reperfusion therapy. Randomized control trials are limited. We try to explore the efficacy and safety of CSWT for patients with severe CAD.

METHODS

Thirty patients with severe CAD who had obvious ischemia on myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) were enrolled and randomly assigned to the CSWT group or the control group. They had received optimal medication treatment for at least three months. Nine sessions of shock wave therapy were conducted over 3 months. CSWT group received the real treatment, while the control group received the pseudo-treatment. Clinical symptom, imaging outcomes and safety parameters were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

After treatment, regional stress score (P = .023), improvement rate (IR) of ischemic area (IA) stress (P < .001) and IR of IA difference (P < .001) were significantly favor CSWT group. The interaction of summed rest score (P < .001), summed stress score (P = .004), summed difference score (P = .036) were significantly improved in the CSWT group compared to the control group. Seattle angina questionnaire, quality of life (QOL) and the distance of six-minute walking test (6MWT) were improved in both groups without significant difference between them. Hemodynamic parameters were stable during procedure. Myocardial injury markers showed no changes in two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated CSWT could effectively and safely improve myocardial perfusion in patients with severe CAD. Clinical symptom, QOL and 6MWT were all improved after treatment, but no significant difference between two groups.

Cardiac Shock Wave Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease: an Updated Meta-analysis

Introduction

The aim of this article is to study the efficacy and safety of cardiac shock wave therapy (CSWT) in the treatment of coronary heart disease (CAD).

Methods

A comprehensive search of electronic databases and a manual search of conference papers and abstracts were performed until September 30, 2018. The studies using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 14.0 softwares were reviewed, and meta-analyses were performed on 13 indicators, such as a six-min walking distance test (6MWT), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) score, angina class (Canadian Cardiology Society [CCS]), etc.

Results

A total of 26 articles were included. The total patient population was 855, of which 781 patients were treated with CSWT. Meta-analyses indicated that 6MWT (mean difference [MD] 75.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 49.03, 102.25, P<0.00001) and NYHA (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.92) in the CSWT group were comparable to those in the conventional revascularization group (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.92, -0.49, P<0.00001). SAQ (MD 10.75, 95% CI 6.66, 14.83, P<0.00001), CCS (MD -0.99, 95% CI -1.13, -0.84, P<0.00001), nitrate dosage (MD -1.84, 95% CI -2.77, -1.12, P<0.00001), LVEF (MD 3.77, 95% CI 2.17, 5.37, P<0.00001), and SSS (MD -4.29, 95% CI -5.61, -2.96, P<0.00001), SRS (MD -2.90, 95% CI -4.85, -0.95, P=0.004), and the exercise test (standard mean difference 0.57, 95% CI 0.12, 1.02, P=0.01) all showed significant differences.

Conclusion

CSWT may offer beneficial effects to patients with CAD, but more large-scale clinical studies are needed to further verify its therapeutic effect.

An evidence-based review of neuromodulation for the treatment and management of refractory angina

Angina pectoris is defined as substernal chest pain that is typically exacerbated by exertion, stress, or other exposures. There are various methods of treatment for angina. Lifestyle modification and pharmacological management are considered as conservative treatments. If these medications do not result in the resolution of pain, more invasive approaches are an option, like coronary revascularization. Refractory angina (RA) is differentiated from acute or chronic angina based on the persistence of symptoms despite conventional therapies. Overall, the prevalence of RA is estimated to be 5%-15% in patients with coronary artery disease, which can account for up to 1,500,000 current cases and 100,000 new cases in the United States per year. Spinal cord stimulation treatment is a viable option for patients who are suffering from RA pain and are either not candidates for revascularization surgery or are currently not being well managed on more traditional treatments. Many studies show a positive result.