Background-The choice of imaging techniques in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) varies between countries, regions, and hospitals. This prospective, multicenter, comparative effectiveness study was designed to assess the relative accuracy of commonly used imaging techniques for identifying patients with significant CAD. Methods and Results-A total of 475 patients with stable chest pain and intermediate likelihood of CAD underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography and stress myocardial perfusion imaging by single photon emission computed tomography or positron emission tomography, and ventricular wall motion imaging by stress echocardiography or cardiac magnetic resonance. If ≥1 test was abnormal, patients underwent invasive coronary angiography. Significant CAD was defined by invasive coronary angiography as >50% stenosis of the left main stem, >70% stenosis in a major coronary vessel, or 30% to 70% stenosis with fractional flow reserve ≤0.8. Significant CAD was present in 29% of patients. In a patient-based analysis, coronary computed tomographic angiography had the highest diagnostic accuracy, the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve being 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.94), sensitivity being 91%, and specificity being 92%. Myocardial perfusion imaging had good diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve, 0.74;
Aims Glucose-lowering, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists reduce incidence of major cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). However, randomized clinical trials reported inconsistent effects on myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, and limited data in DM patients without established CV disease (CVD). Very recently, new relevant evidence was available from additional CV outcome trials (CVOTs) that also included large subgroups of patients with DM without established CVD. Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on major CV events and safety in DM patients with and without established CVD. Methods and results In this trial-level meta-analysis, we analysed data from randomized placebo-controlled CVOTs assessing efficacy and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists in adult patients with Type 2 DM. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS, and clinicaltrial.gov databases for eligible trials. Of 360 articles identified and screened for eligibility, seven CVOTs were included, with an overall of 56 004 patients included. The difference in efficacy with respect to the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) primary endpoint (including CV mortality, non-fatal MI, and non-fatal stroke) between patients with established CVD and patients with CV risk factors only was not significant [pooled interaction effect, expressed as ratio of hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85–1.34]. In the analysis of the whole population of DM patients, GLP-1 receptor agonists showed a significant 12% reduction in the hazard of the three-point MACE composite endpoint (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80–0.96) and a significant reduction in the risk of CV mortality (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79–0.98), all-cause mortality (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.97), fatal and non-fatal stroke (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76–0.94), and heart failure (HF) hospitalization (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86–0.97). No significant effect was observed for fatal and non-fatal MI (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82–1.02), although in a sensitivity analysis, based on a less conservative statistical approach, the pooled HR become statistically significant (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83–1.00; P = 0.039). No excess of hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer was observed between GLP-1 receptor agonists and placebo. Conclusion Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists significantly reduce MACE, CV and total mortality stroke, and hospitalization for HF, with a trend for reduction of MI, in patients with Type 2 DM with and without established CVD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.