Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:32:30.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overview of systematic reviews on invasive treatment of stable coronary artery disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2006

Pekka Kuukasjärvi ,
Antti Malmivaara ,
Matti Halinen ,
Juha Hartikainen ,
Pekka E. Keto ,
Taisto Talvensaari ,
Ilkka Tierala  and
Marjukka Mäkelä
Pekka Kuukasjärvi
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Care Technology Assessment
Antti Malmivaara
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Care Technology Assessment
Matti Halinen
Affiliation:
Kuopio University Hospital
Juha Hartikainen
Affiliation:
Kuopio University Hospital
Pekka E. Keto
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital
Taisto Talvensaari
Affiliation:
Kanta-Häme Central Hospital
Ilkka Tierala
Affiliation:
Helsinki University Central Hospital
Marjukka Mäkelä
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Care Technology Assessment
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study was to evaluate the validity of the systematic reviews as a source of best evidence and to present and interpret the evidence of the systematic reviews on effectiveness of surgery and percutaneous interventions for stable coronary artery disease.

Methods: Electronic databases were searched without language restriction from January 1966 to March 2004. The databases used included the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, DARE, the Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE(R), MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations. We included systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials on patients with stable coronary heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery in comparison with medical treatment or a comparison between invasive techniques. At least one of the following outcomes had to be reported: death, myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, revascularization. The methodological quality was assessed using a modified version of the scale devised by Oxman and Guyatt (1991). A standardized data-extraction form was used. The method used to evaluate clinical relevance was carried out with updated method guidelines from the Cochrane Back Research Group. Quantitative synthesis of the effectiveness data is presented.

Results: We found nineteen systematic reviews. The median score of validity was 13 points (range, 6–17 points), with a maximum of 18 points. vCoronary artery bypass surgery gives better relief of angina, and the need for repeated procedures is reduced after bypass surgery compared with percutaneous interventions. There is inconsistent evidence as to whether bypass surgery improves survival compared with percutaneous intervention. A smaller need for repeated procedures exists after bare metal stent and even more so after drug-eluting stent placement than after percutaneous intervention without stent placement. However, according to the current evidence, these treatment alternatives do not differ in terms of mortality or myocardial infarction.

Conclusions: We found some high-quality systematic reviews. There was evidence on the potential of invasive treatments to provide symptomatic relief. Surgery seems to provide a longer-lasting effect than percutaneous interventions with bare metal stents or without stents. Evidence in favor of drug-eluting stents so far is based on short-term follow-up and mostly on patients with single-vessel disease.

Keywords

AngioplastyPercutaneous coronaryCoronary artery bypassMeta-analysisReview
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 219 - 234
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ASERNIP-S. 2002. Interventional procedure overview of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB). London: NICE;
Biondi-Zoccai GG, Abbate A, Agostoni P, et al. 2003 Stenting versus surgical bypass grafting for coronary artery disease: Systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ital Heart J. 4: 271– 280.Google Scholar
Brophy J. 2003. An evaluation of drug eluting (coated) stents for percutaneous coronary interventions; What should their role be at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC)? Montreal: The Technology Assessment Unit (TAU) at McGill University Health Centre (MUHC);
Brophy JM, Belisle P, Joseph L. 2003 Evidence for use of coronary stents. A hierarchical bayesian meta-analysis. [see comment][summary for patients in Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:I15; PMID: 12755584]. Ann Intern Med. 138: 777– 786.Google Scholar
Bucher HC, Hengstler P, Schindler C, Guyatt GH. 2000 Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for non-acute coronary heart disease: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. [see comment]. BMJ. 321: 73– 77.Google Scholar
2004. European health for all database. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe;
Grip L, Brorsson B. 2004. Läkemedelsavgivande stentar i hjärtats kransartärer. Stockholm, Sweden: SBU;
Gunnell D, Harvey I, Smith L. 1995 The invasive management of angina: Issues for consumers and commissioners. J Epidemiol Community Health. 49: 335– 343.Google Scholar
Hill R, Bagust A, Bakhai A, et al. 2004 Coronary artery stents: A rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 8: iii– iv, 1– 242.Google Scholar
Hoffman SN, TenBrook JA, Wolf MP, et al. 2003 A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: One- to eight-year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 41: 1293– 1304.Google Scholar
Hoving JL, Gross AR, Gasner D, et al. 2001 A critical appraisal of review articles on the effectiveness of conservative treatment for neck pain. Spine. 26: 196– 205.Google Scholar
Khan K, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. 2003. Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine. How to review and apply findings of healthcare research. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd;
Meads C, Cummins C, Jolly K, et al. 2000 Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: A rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 4: 1– 153.Google Scholar
Medical Services Advisory Committee. Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) with the aid of tissue stabilisers. Canberra, Australia: MSAC; 2001. Report No. MSAC reference 11.
Nordmann AJ, Hengstler P, Leimenstoll BM, et al. 2004 Clinical outcomes of stents versus balloon angioplasty in non-acute coronary artery disease. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J. 25: 69– 80.Google Scholar
Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. 1991 Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 44: 1271– 1278.Google Scholar
Parolari A, Alamanni F, Cannata A, et al. 2003 Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass: Meta-analysis of currently available randomized trials. Ann Thorac Surg. 76: 37– 40.Google Scholar
Perleth M. 2000. Vergleichende Effektivität und Differentialindikation von Ballondilatation (PTCA) versus Bypasschirurgie bei Ein- und Mehrgefäßerkrankungen der Hertzkranzgefäße. Hannover, Deutschland: Aufbau einer Datenbasis “Evaluation medizinischer Verfahren und Technologien” in der Bundesrepublik;
Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Rickards AF, et al. 1995 Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing coronary angioplasty with bypass surgery. [see comment]. Lancet. 346: 1184– 1189.Google Scholar
Rihal CS, Raco DL, Gersh BJ, Yusuf S. 2003 Indications for coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in chronic stable angina: Review of the evidence and methodological considerations. Circulation. 108: 2439– 2345.Google Scholar
Sculpher MJ, Petticrew M, Kelland JL, et al. 1998 Resource allocation for chronic stable angina: A systematic review of effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of alternative interventions. Health Technol Assess. 2: i– iv, 1– 176.Google Scholar
Sim I, Gupta M, McDonald K, Bourassa MG, Hlatky MA. 1995 A meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in multivessel coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 76: 1025– 9.Google Scholar
Solomon AJ, Gersh BJ. 1998 Management of chronic stable angina: Medical therapy, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Lessons from the randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 128: 216– 223.Google Scholar
van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. 2003 Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine. 28: 1290– 1299.Google Scholar
Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, et al. 1994 Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: Overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. [see comment][erratum appears in Lancet. 1994;344:1446]. Lancet. 344: 563– 570.Google Scholar