Wani, Shariq Ahmad

Complete revascularization improves outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD); however, the optimal timing of noninfarct-related artery intervention during the index procedure, immediate revascularization (IR) versus a staged approach (SR), remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing SR and IR in patients with STEMI and MVD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization. Random-effects models with Hartung–Knapp adjustment were used. Trial sequential analysis assessed evidence conclusiveness, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Eight randomized trials, including 5077 patients (2556 SR; 2521 IR), were analyzed. No significant differences were observed between SR and IR for major adverse cardiovascular events [odds ratios (ORs), 1.07; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.76–1.49], recurrent myocardial infarction (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.80–2.14), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.51–1.13), or all-cause mortality (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.54–1.06). Rates of stent thrombosis, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and heart failure hospitalization were also comparable. Trial sequential analysis indicated insufficient information size to draw definitive conclusions, and the certainty of evidence ranged from very low to low. In patients with STEMI and MVD, staged and immediate complete revascularization provide comparable ischemic, safety, and mortality outcomes. Current evidence supports clinical equipoise, and revascularization timing should be individualized pending results from adequately powered trials.

e20593 Background: Tislelizumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, is emerging as a promising immunotherapy agent and has demonstrated clinical benefit and acceptable tolerability in recent lung cancer trials. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of Tislelizumab, as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy (Group 1), as a superior treatment alternative for lung cancer compared to standard chemotherapy (Group 2) in improving patient outcomes. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted through MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2024 to identify Randomized Control Trials (RCTs). Hazards ratio (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs) were generated, by employing a Random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, with statistical significance set at p<0.05. Our outcomes of interest were Progression Free Survival (PFS), Overall Survival (OS), Objective Response Rate (ORR), Disease Control Rate (DCR), Duration of response (DOR), and treatment-related adverse Events. Results: A total of 6 RCTs involving 2107 patients were included for analysis. Pooled analysis demonstrated that Group 1 significantly improved PFS, OS, and DOR with HRs of 1.85 (95% CI: 1.71-1.99; p <0.00001, I² = 0%), 2.01 (95% CI: 1.75-2.29; p <0.00001, I² = 0%) and 2.14 (95% CI: 1.52-3.03; p <0.0001, I² = 39%), respectively. Group 1 has better DCR and ORR compared to Group 2 with RRs of 1.52 (95% CI: 1.12-2.07; p= 0.007, I² = 97%) and 1.50 (95% CI: 1.20-1.86; p= 0.0003, I² = 83%), respectively. The high heterogeneity observed in the pooled analysis of DCR (I² = 97%) and ORR (I² = 83%) likely reflects variability in study populations, treatment protocols, and response assessment criteria across the included RCTs. Subgroup or sensitivity analyses could help identify contributing factors. Despite the heterogeneity, the pooled effect sizes indicate a statistically significant improvement in DCR and ORR with Tislelizumab, with caution warranted when generalizing these findings. Group 1 significantly reduced all-cause mortality compared to Group 2 (RR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.83–0.95; p = 0.0003), with no heterogeneity (I² = 0%). No significant differences were found in adverse events, except for ALT elevations. (RR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.14–1.61; p = 0.0006, I² = 25%). Conclusions: Tislelizumab, with or without chemotherapy, demonstrates greater PFS and OS benefits compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with lung cancer. There was a significantly reduced all-cause mortality in the intervention group; however, the observed increase in the risk of ALT elevation underscores the need for vigilant liver function monitoring. When combined with chemotherapy, Tislelizumab presents a promising treatment option for lung cancer.