Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2025
Comparison of Limus and Paclitaxel Drug-Coated Balloons, Second-Generation or Newer Drug-Eluting Stents, and Balloon Angioplasty: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisСистематический 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.
Kiyohara Yuko, Aikawa Tadao, Saito Tetsuya, Casso Dominguez Abel, Wiley Jose, Kolte Dhaval, Secemsky Eric A, Yeh Robert W, Laham Roger J, Latib Azeem, Bhatt Deepak L, Kuno Toshiki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents are comparable in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) and whether limus versus paclitaxel DCBs yield similar clinical outcomes. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of limus and paclitaxel DCBs in patients with CAD through a network meta-analysis.
METHODS: We comprehensively searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the following 4 strategies: limus DCB, paclitaxel DCB, second-generation or newer drug-eluting stent, and plain old balloon angioplasty. The primary outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), typically a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual components of MACE. We performed subgroup analyses for in-stent restenosis, small-vessel (<3 mm) CAD, and other de novo CAD, such as large vessel and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.
RESULTS: We identified 39 randomized controlled trials including 10 219 patients. There was no significant difference in MACE between limus and paclitaxel DCBs (relative risk, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.86-1.73]). There were no significant differences in MACE between limus or paclitaxel DCB and second-generation or newer drug-eluting stents. Plain old balloon angioplasty had an increased risk of MACE compared with others. These results were consistent across subgroup analyses for in-stent restenosis, small-vessel CAD, and other de novo CAD.
CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in MACE or its components between limus and paclitaxel DCBs, albeit with limited statistical power. Furthermore, DCB and second-generation or newer drug-eluting stents yielded similar outcomes though power was limited, especially for other de novo CAD.
REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD420250654276.
METHODS: We comprehensively searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the following 4 strategies: limus DCB, paclitaxel DCB, second-generation or newer drug-eluting stent, and plain old balloon angioplasty. The primary outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), typically a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. Secondary outcomes included individual components of MACE. We performed subgroup analyses for in-stent restenosis, small-vessel (<3 mm) CAD, and other de novo CAD, such as large vessel and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.
RESULTS: We identified 39 randomized controlled trials including 10 219 patients. There was no significant difference in MACE between limus and paclitaxel DCBs (relative risk, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.86-1.73]). There were no significant differences in MACE between limus or paclitaxel DCB and second-generation or newer drug-eluting stents. Plain old balloon angioplasty had an increased risk of MACE compared with others. These results were consistent across subgroup analyses for in-stent restenosis, small-vessel CAD, and other de novo CAD.
CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in MACE or its components between limus and paclitaxel DCBs, albeit with limited statistical power. Furthermore, DCB and second-generation or newer drug-eluting stents yielded similar outcomes though power was limited, especially for other de novo CAD.
REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD420250654276.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCardiac CathetersCardiovascular AgentsCoated Materials, BiocompatibleCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary RestenosisDrug-Eluting StentsPaclitaxelProsthesis DesignRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment Outcome