BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025
Drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents in patients with small coronary artery disease: an updated meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Abdelaziz Ahmed, Elsayed Hanaa, Atta Karim, Desouky Muhammad, Gomaa Mahmoud, Kadhim Hallas, Mechi Ahmed, Abdelaziz Mohamed, Ezzat Mahmoud, Mabrouk Manar Alaa, Ellabban Mohamed Hatem, Zawaneh Emad Addin, Hafez Abdelrahman, Elnaggar Mohamed Yasser, Sena Ahmed O, Bahnasy Ahmed, Singer Emad
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloons (DCB) have promising results in the management of large coronary artery lesions (CAD), still their role in treating small CAD is not well established. We aimed to provide a comprehensive appraisal of the efficacy and safety of DCBs in patients with small CAD.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, web of science, Ovid, and Cochrane Central from inception until 30 March, 2023. We included all relevant studies that compared DCB versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in small CAD patients undergoing PCI. We reported clinical outcomes as MACE, all-cause death, cardiac death, MI, TLR, TVR, and stent thrombosis, while angiographic outcomes were late lumen loss (LLL), mean lumen diameter (MLD), net luminal gain (NLG), and in-segment binary restenosis.
RESULTS: Twenty studies comprising 18,469 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence rate of MACE was 9.4% in the DCB group compared to 9.9% in the DES group, without a significant difference in the risk of MACE (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.22, p = 0.78). Moreover, DCB significantly decreased MLD and NLG compared to DES, with the following values, respectively (MD= -0.19, 95% CI: -0.32 to -0.06, p < 0.001, and MD -0.21, 95% CI: -0.40 to -0.01, p = 0.04). On the other hand, DCB was associated with higher odds in the risk of in-segment binary restenosis (OR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.68, p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: DCB is an alternative approach to DES in the management of small CAD and should be validated in daily clinical practice.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023413068.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, web of science, Ovid, and Cochrane Central from inception until 30 March, 2023. We included all relevant studies that compared DCB versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in small CAD patients undergoing PCI. We reported clinical outcomes as MACE, all-cause death, cardiac death, MI, TLR, TVR, and stent thrombosis, while angiographic outcomes were late lumen loss (LLL), mean lumen diameter (MLD), net luminal gain (NLG), and in-segment binary restenosis.
RESULTS: Twenty studies comprising 18,469 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The incidence rate of MACE was 9.4% in the DCB group compared to 9.9% in the DES group, without a significant difference in the risk of MACE (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.22, p = 0.78). Moreover, DCB significantly decreased MLD and NLG compared to DES, with the following values, respectively (MD= -0.19, 95% CI: -0.32 to -0.06, p < 0.001, and MD -0.21, 95% CI: -0.40 to -0.01, p = 0.04). On the other hand, DCB was associated with higher odds in the risk of in-segment binary restenosis (OR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.68, p = 0.04).
CONCLUSION: DCB is an alternative approach to DES in the management of small CAD and should be validated in daily clinical practice.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023413068.