Immediate non-culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: a swinging pendulum

Colchicine administration for percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of colchicine administration in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of colchicine administration versus placebo on treatment efficacy for PCI.

METHODS

We search PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through June 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of colchicine administration versus placebo in patients with PCI. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Five RCTs involving 5526 patients are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for myocardial infarction patients undergoing PCI, colchicine intervention can significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (OR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.97; P = 0.02), but reveals no obvious impact on mortality (OR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.32; P = 0.57), myocardial infarction (OR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.17; P = 0.39), serious adverse events (OR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.31 to 1.61; P = 0.41), or restenosis (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.63 to 1.64; P = 0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Colchicine treatment may be effective to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing PCI.

Efficacy of liraglutide intervention in myocardial infarction : A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of liraglutide intervention for myocardial infarction (MI) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of liraglutide intervention versus placebo on cardiac function for MI.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through April 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of liraglutide intervention versus placebo on MI. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials involving 469 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for MI, liraglutide intervention significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (mean difference [MD] = 4.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.71 to 7.14; P = 0.001), superoxide dismutase (MD = 6.89; 95% CI = 1.80 to 11.98; P = 0.008), and decreased high-sensitivity C‑reactive protein (MD = -0.21; 95% CI = -0.33 to -0.09; P = 0.0006), but had no remarkable influence on major adverse cardiovascular events (risk ratio = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.28-1.09; P = 0.09), recurrence of MI (risk ratio = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.19-1.30; P = 0.16), repeated revascularization (risk ratio = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.17-1.42; P = 0.19), and cardiac death (risk ratio = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.12-2.73; P = 0.48).

CONCLUSIONS

Liraglutide intervention is associated with significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction and superoxide dismutase, reduced high-sensitivity C‑reactive protein in patients with MI, but has no remarkable impact on major adverse cardiovascular events, recurrence of MI, repeated revascularization or cardiac death.