While invasive coronary angiography is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) involving the epicardial coronary vessels, coronary physiology-guided revascularization represents a contemporary gold-standard practice for the invasive management of patients with intermediate CAD. Nevertheless, the long-term results of assessing the severity of stenosis through physiology compared to the angiogram as the guide to bypass surgery - coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are still uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical outcomes of a physiology guided CABG compared to the angiography-guided CABG.
We sought to determine if outcomes differ between a physiology guided CABG compared to an angiography-guided CABG.
We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The last date for this search was June 2020, and all of the previous studies were included. We conducted a pooled risk-ratio meta-analysis for four main outcomes: all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). P-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q test and quantified by the I2 index.
We identified five studies that included a total of 1,114 patients. A pooled meta-analysis showed no significant difference between a physiology guided strategy and an angiography-guided strategy in MI (risk ratio [RR] = 0.72; 95%CI, 0.39-1.33; I2 = 0%; p = 0.65), TVR (RR = 1.25; 95%CI = 0.73-2.13; I2 = 0%; p = 0.52), or MACE (RR = 0.81; 95%CI = 0.62-1.07; I2 = 0%; p = 1). The physiology guided strategy has 0.63 times the risk of all-cause death compared to the angiography-guided strategy (RR = 0.63; 95%CI = 0.42-0.96; I2 = 0%; p = 0.55).
This meta-analysis demonstrated a reduction in all-cause death when a physiology guided CABG strategy was used. Nevertheless, the short follow-up period, small sample size of the included studies and the non-discrimination of the causes of death can largely justify these conclusions. Studies with an extended follow-up period of observation are required to draw more robust and definitive conclusions.
Enquanto a angiografia coronária invasiva é considerada padrão outro para o diagnóstico da doença arterial coronariana (DAC), envolvendo os vasos coronários epicárdicos, a revascularização coronariana guiada por fisiologia representa uma prática padrão ouro contemporânea para a administração invasiva de pacientes com DAC intermediária. Porém, os resultados de longo prazo da avaliação da gravidade da estenose por meio da fisiologia, em comparação à angiografia como guia para a cirurgia de bypass – enxerto de bypass de artéria coronária (CABG), ainda são incertos. Esta metanálise visa avaliar os resultados clínicos de um CABG guiado por fisiologia em comparação a um CABG guiado pela angiografia.
Buscamos determinar se os resultados entre um CABG guiado por fisiologia e os de um CABG guiado por angiografia são diferentes entre si.
Pesquisamos nas bases Medline, EMBASE e Cochrane Library. A última data de busca foi junho de 2020, e todos os estudos anteriores foram incluídos. Realizamos uma metanálise de razão de risco agrupado para quatro principais resultados: morte por todas as causas, infarto do miocárdio (IM), revascularização do vaso alvo (TVR) e eventos cardiovasculares adversos maiores (MACE). Valor de p <0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significante. A heterogeneidade foi avaliada com o teste Q de Cochran, e quantificada pelo índice I2.
Identificamos cinco estudos incluindo um total de 1.114 pacientes. Uma metanálise agrupada não demonstrou diferenças significativas entre a estratégia da fisiologia e da angiografia para IM (razão de risco [RR] = 0,72; IC95%, 0,39–1,33; I2 = 0%; p = 0,65), TVR (RR = 1,25; IC95% = 0,73–2,13; I2 = 0%; p = 0,52), ou MACE (RR = 0,81; IC95% = 0,62–1,07; I2 = 0%; p = 1). A estratégia da fisiologia apresentou 0,63 vezes o risco de morte por todas as causas em comparação à estratégia da angiografia (RR = 0,63; IC95% = 0,42–0,96; I2 = 0%; p = 0,55).
Esta metanálise demonstrou uma redução nas mortes por todas as causas quando usada a estratégia do CABG guiado por fisiologia. Porém, o curto período de acompanhamento, o tamanho da amostra pequeno dos estudos incluídos e a não-discriminação das causas de morte podem justificar essas conclusões. Estudos com períodos mais longos de acompanhamento são necessários para tirar conclusões mais robustas e definitivas.
While invasive coronary angiography is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) involving the epicardial coronary vessels, coronary physiology-guided revascularization represents a contemporary gold-standard practice for the invasive management of patients with intermediate CAD. Nevertheless, the long-term results of assessing the severity of stenosis through physiology compared to the angiogram as the guide to bypass surgery – coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are still uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical outcomes of a physiology guided CABG compared to the angiography-guided CABG.
We sought to determine if outcomes differ between a physiology guided CABG compared to an angiography-guided CABG.
We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The last date for this search was June 2020, and all of the previous studies were included. We conducted a pooled risk-ratio meta-analysis for four main outcomes: all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). P-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q test and quantified by the I
We identified five studies that included a total of 1,114 patients. A pooled meta-analysis showed no significant difference between a physiology guided strategy and an angiography-guided strategy in MI (risk ratio [RR] = 0.72; 95%CI, 0.39–1.33; I2 = 0%; p = 0.65), TVR (RR = 1.25; 95%CI = 0.73–2.13; I2 = 0%; p = 0.52), or MACE (RR = 0.81; 95%CI = 0.62–1.07; I2 = 0%; p = 1). The physiology guided strategy has 0.63 times the risk of all-cause death compared to the angiography-guided strategy (RR = 0.63; 95%CI = 0.42–0.96; I2 = 0%; p = 0.55).
This meta-analysis demonstrated a reduction in all-cause death when a physiology guided CABG strategy was used. Nevertheless, the short follow-up period, small sample size of the included studies and the non-discrimination of the causes of death can largely justify these conclusions. Studies with an extended follow-up period of observation are required to draw more robust and definitive conclusions.

Physiology or Angiography-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis.

The adverse effects of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using tenofovir disoproxil fumarate are barriers to PrEP initiation and continuation. Although serious effects are rare and predictable, evidence for this assessment among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) is still limited. This study assesses the adverse effects of daily oral PrEP in MSM and TGW. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials and cohort studies on the use of daily oral PrEP selected from the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Data extraction included adverse effects and changes in renal and hepatic markers. Random effects models were used to summarize the risk of adverse effects throughout the study. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran's Q test and the inconsistency test (I2). The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. The search identified 653 references. Of these, 10 were selected. All studies assessed the eligibility of renal and hepatic markers. The use of daily oral PrEP was not associated with grade 3 or 4 adverse events (RR = 0.99; 95%CI: 0.83-1.18; I2 = 26.1%), any serious adverse event (RR = 1.04; 95%CI: 0.58-1.87; I2 = 88.4%), grade 3+4 creatinine level (RR = 0.66; 95%CI: 0.24-1.84; I2 = 79.9%), and grade 3 or 4 hypophosphatemia (RR = 0.56; 95%CI: 0.15-2.10). The certainty of the evidence ranged from high to moderate for the outcomes analyzed. Daily oral PrEP is safe and well tolerated by MSM and TGW. Adverse effects were minimal and evenly distributed between intervention and control.
Os efeitos adversos da profilaxia pré-exposição (PrEP) oral com fumarato de tenofovir desoproxila são barreiras para o início e a continuidade da PrEP. Embora os efeitos graves sejam raros e previsíveis, as evidências dessa avaliação entre homens que fazem sexo com homens (HSH) e mulheres transgênero (MTG) ainda são limitadas. Este estudo avalia os efeitos adversos da PrEP oral diária em HSH e MTG. Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de ensaios clínicos e coortes que demonstram o uso de PrEP oral diária selecionados nas bases de dados PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS e Cochrane CENTRAL. A extração de dados incluiu os efeitos adversos e alterações nos marcadores renais e hepáticos. Modelos de efeitos aleatórios foram usados para resumir o risco de efeitos adversos ao longo do estudo. A heterogeneidade foi avaliada pelo teste Q de Cochran e inconsistência (I
Los efectos adversos de la profilaxis preexposición (PrEP) oral con fumarato de disoproxilo de tenofovir son barreras para el inicio y la continuación de la PrEP. Aunque los efectos graves son raros y predecibles, la evidencia de esta evaluación entre hombres que tienen sexo con hombres (HSH) y mujeres transgénero (MTG) sigue siendo limitada. Este estudio evalúa los efectos adversos de la PrEP oral diaria en HSH y MTG. Se trata de una revisión sistemática y un metaanálisis de ensayos clínicos y cohortes que demuestran el uso de la PrEP oral diaria seleccionada de las bases de datos PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS y Cochrane CENTRAL. La recolección de datos incluyó efectos adversos y cambios en los marcadores renales y hepáticos. Se utilizaron modelos de efectos aleatorios para resumir el riesgo de efectos adversos a lo largo del estudio. La heterogeneidad se evaluó mediante la prueba Q de Cochran y la inconsistencia (I

Papers