ObjectiveTo systematically review the effectiveness and safety of aspirin-clopidogrel combined anti-platelet therapy after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). MethodsDatabases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2013), PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP were searched electronically from their inception to September 2013 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about aspirin-clopidogrel combined anti-platelet therapy after CABG. Two reviewers selected literature independently according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After data extraction and methological quality assessment of the included studies, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of six RCTs involving 901 patients were included, of which 449 cases were in the aspirin-clopidogrel group (A+C) and 452 cases were in the aspirin with or without placebo group (A+P). The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with A+P, A+C significantly reduced occlusion rates of the saphenous vein graft (RR=0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80, P=0.000 6). But no significant difference was found between the two groups in occlusion rates of the left internal mammary artery graft (RR=0.88, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.18, P=0.78), radial artery graft (RR=0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.46, P=0.18), pleural fluid drainage volume (MD=-1.68, 95%CI-48.69 to 45.32, P=0.94), incidence of major bleeding events (RR=1.20, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.65, P=0.75), major cardiovascular events (OR=0.81, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.72, P=0.58), and mortality within 30 days (RR=0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.44, P=0.52). ConclusionIn reducing occlusion rates of the saphenous vein graft, the A+C group is more effective than the A+P group. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusion still needs to be verified by carrying out more high-quality RCTs.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of endoscopic radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). MethodsDatabases including The Cochrane Library (Issue2, 2015), PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP were searched electronically from inception to August 2015 to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies about endoscopic radial artery harvesting technique versus traditional incision technique for CABG. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 12 studies involving 1359 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that no significant differences were found between the two groups in perioperative mortality (OR=0.66, 95%CI 0.17 to 2.57, P=0.55), the incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction (OR=0.78, 95%CI 0.30 to 2.06, P=0.62), vascular graft patency rate (OR=1.40, 95%CI 0.80 to 2.45, P=0.24) and the incidence of wound infection (OR=0.59, 95%CI 0.33 to 1.07, P=0.08). The endoscopic group showed significantly lower incidence of hematoma formation (OR=0.39, 95%CI 0.20 to 0.74, P=0.004) and paresthesia (OR=0.44, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.88, P=0.02) than that of the incision group. ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that, compared with the incision technique, the endoscopic radial artery harvesting could significantly reduce the incidence of hematoma formation and paresthesia in patients underwent CABG. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions still need to be verified by carrying out more high-quality studies.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the long-term efficacy of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus drug-eluting stent implantation (DES-PCI) for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. MethodsWe searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2015), PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about CABG versus DES-PCI for patients with coronary multivessel disease from the inception to October 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of seven RCTs, involving 5 723 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with the DES-PCI group, the CABG group had lower 1-year incidence of target vessel revascularization (OR=0.39, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.48, P<0.000 01), 5-year mortality (OR=0.78, 95%CI 0.65 to 0.94, P=0.008), and 5-year incidence of myocardial infarction (OR=0.46, 95%CI 0.37 to 0.58, P<0.000 01). However, 1-year, 2-year and 5-year incidences of stroke in the CABG group were significantly higher than that in the DES-PCI group (all P values <0.05). ConclusionThe available evidence suggests that CABG is superior to DES-PCI for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in long-term effects, but CABG could increase the incidence of stroke. Due to the quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions still need to be verified by more high-quality RCTs.