BACKGROUND: The available evidence regarding the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on patients receiving dialysis with coronary artery disease (CAD) is limited and inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the association between PCI and clinical outcomes as compared with medical therapy alone in patients undergoing dialysis with CAD in China. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in 30 tertiary medical centers across 12 provinces in China from January 2015 to June 2021 to include patients on dialysis with CAD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, the individual components of MACE, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association between PCI and outcomes. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) were performed to account for potential between-group differences. RESULTS: Of the 1146 patients on dialysis with significant CAD, 821 (71.6%) underwent PCI. After a median follow-up of 23.0 months, PCI was associated with a 43.0% significantly lower risk for MACE (33.9% [ n  = 278] vs . 43.7% [ n  = 142]; adjusted hazards ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.71), along with a slightly increased risk for bleeding outcomes that did not reach statistical significance (11.1% vs . 8.3%; adjusted hazards ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.82-2.11). Furthermore, PCI was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. Subgroup analysis did not modify the association of PCI with patient outcomes. These primary findings were consistent across IPTW, PSM, and competing risk analyses. CONCLUSION This study indicated that PCI in patients on dialysis with CAD was significantly associated with lower MACE and mortality when comparing with those with medical therapy alone, albeit with a slightly increased risk for bleeding events that did not reach statistical significance.
Humans ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods* ; Male ; Female ; Coronary Artery Disease/drug therapy* ; Retrospective Studies ; Renal Dialysis/methods* ; Middle Aged ; Aged ; China ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Treatment Outcome

Objective:To explore the clinical characteristics, diagnostic difficulties and optimization direction of treatment strategies of ectopic varicose veins rupture and bleeding in the colon of cirrhotic portal hypertension.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of a patient with cirrhotic portal hypertension and ectopic varicose rupture and bleeding of the colon diagnosed clinically in the Department of Gastroenterology of the Xin′an International Hospital Affiliated to Jiaxing University in February 2025. Combined with the review of relevant literature, the diagnosis and treatment experience was summarized.Results:The patient was diagnosed by colonoscopy with rupture and bleeding of varicose veins in the descending colon, and the blood vessels were exposed.After hemostasis with tissue clips under emergency colonoscopy and the bleeding stopped, drug treatment for bleeding prevention was continued. Sequential endoscopic EcV treatment was planned to be scheduled at an alternative time.Conclusions:The incidence of rupture and bleeding of ectopic varicose veins in the colon due to cirrhotic portal hypertension is relatively low. The diagnosis is difficult, the risk of bleeding is high, and the treatment strategies are controversial. It is necessary to further optimize the diagnosis and treatment strategies in order to improve the therapeutic effect of patients.

Objective:To explore the clinical characteristics, diagnostic difficulties and optimization direction of treatment strategies of ectopic varicose veins rupture and bleeding in the colon of cirrhotic portal hypertension.Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of a patient with cirrhotic portal hypertension and ectopic varicose rupture and bleeding of the colon diagnosed clinically in the Department of Gastroenterology of the Xin′an International Hospital Affiliated to Jiaxing University in February 2025. Combined with the review of relevant literature, the diagnosis and treatment experience was summarized.Results:The patient was diagnosed by colonoscopy with rupture and bleeding of varicose veins in the descending colon, and the blood vessels were exposed.After hemostasis with tissue clips under emergency colonoscopy and the bleeding stopped, drug treatment for bleeding prevention was continued. Sequential endoscopic EcV treatment was planned to be scheduled at an alternative time.Conclusions:The incidence of rupture and bleeding of ectopic varicose veins in the colon due to cirrhotic portal hypertension is relatively low. The diagnosis is difficult, the risk of bleeding is high, and the treatment strategies are controversial. It is necessary to further optimize the diagnosis and treatment strategies in order to improve the therapeutic effect of patients.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.