Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026
A meta-analysis of the efficacy of limus-coated balloons vs. paclitaxel-coated balloons for coronary artery disease.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Shichuan, Guo Sheng, Deng Yangbo, Gao Yuying, Xiong Yinmei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of limus-coated balloons (Limus-DCB) compared with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) in the treatment of coronary artery disease.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Limus-DCB with PCB for coronary artery disease from inception to June 2026. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 software.
RESULTS: A total of 10 studies involving 11 RCTs with 1,707 patients and 1,804 treated vessels were included. The meta-analysis showed that the Limus-DCB group was associated with marginally greater in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) (MD = 0.10, 95% CI 0.00-0.19, P = 0.04) and marginally smaller in-lesion minimal lumen diameter (MLD) (MD = -0.10, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences between the two groups in in-lesion LLL, late lumen enlargement (LLE), binary restenosis rate, target lesion failure (TLF), or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, compared with PCB, Limus-DCB are associated with less favorable angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary artery disease. However, no statistically significant short-term clinical differences were detected between the two groups. Due to the limitations in the quantity and quality of the included studies, these findings need to be verified by more high-quality research.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/recorddashboard, identifier CRD420251153751.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Limus-DCB with PCB for coronary artery disease from inception to June 2026. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 software.
RESULTS: A total of 10 studies involving 11 RCTs with 1,707 patients and 1,804 treated vessels were included. The meta-analysis showed that the Limus-DCB group was associated with marginally greater in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) (MD = 0.10, 95% CI 0.00-0.19, P = 0.04) and marginally smaller in-lesion minimal lumen diameter (MLD) (MD = -0.10, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences between the two groups in in-lesion LLL, late lumen enlargement (LLE), binary restenosis rate, target lesion failure (TLF), or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, compared with PCB, Limus-DCB are associated with less favorable angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary artery disease. However, no statistically significant short-term clinical differences were detected between the two groups. Due to the limitations in the quantity and quality of the included studies, these findings need to be verified by more high-quality research.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/recorddashboard, identifier CRD420251153751.