ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
Proangiogenic Growth Factor Therapy for the Treatment of Refractory Angina: A Meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapeutic Neovascularization for Refractory Angina-Are We Any Closer?Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Refractory angina (RFA; limiting angina despite optimal medical therapy) is a growing, global problem, with limited treatment options. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of proangiogenic growth factor therapy (in the form of vascular growth factors delivered either as recombinant proteins or gene therapy) in patients with RFA ineligible for revascularization. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42018107283) of RCTs as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar databases, as well as scientific session abstracts, were performed. The pooled outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), mortality, myocardial perfusion, and indices of angina severity (Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class [CCS] and exercise tolerance). A prespecified subgroup analysis was performed for delivery method, vector, and protein type. The standardized mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) was calculated to assess relevant outcomes. We assessed heterogeneity using the χ Results: We included 16 RCTs involving 1607 patients (1052 received proangiogenic growth factor therapy and 555 received a placebo or optimal medical therapy). Our analysis showed a significant decreased risk of MACE (OR, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.93) and significantly improved CCS class (SMD, -0.55; 95% CI, -1.10 to 0.00), but not mortality (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.28-1.54) or exercise tolerance (SMD, 0.47; 95% CI, -0.14 to 1.09), in treated patients compared to those in the control group. Conclusions: Proangiogenic growth factor therapy is a promising treatment option for RFA, with beneficial effects seen on MACE and CCS class. The results of ongoing trials are needed before it can be considered for clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.