Annals of medicine · 2026
Comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention strategies for coronary small-vessel disease: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Deng Changjiang, Fan Chao, Du Zhiyan, Xu Yixin, Wu Tingting, Pan Ying, Lv Mingming, Jiang Zhihui, Bai Bingxin, Wang ZhiLong, Adilijiang Adilai, Zheng Yingying, Xie Xiang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Coronary small-vessel disease (SVD) remains challenging for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) because small lumens magnify restenosis and ischemic risk. Multiple devices are available, yet their comparative performance is uncertain. This study evaluated and ranked PCI strategies for SVD.
METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 15 August 2025. Eligible studies were English-language randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with angiographic SVD defined as reference vessel diameter ≤3.0 mm, comparing PCI strategies, and reporting target lesion revascularization (TLR), binary restenosis (BR), or myocardial infarction (MI). A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis generated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and treatment rankings using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
RESULTS: Thirty-nine trials including 14,503 patients met the criteria. For TLR (37 studies; 11,980 patients), the highest SUCRA values were observed with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES 90.1%), zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES 83.9%), and everolimus-eluting stents (EES 82.2%). For BR (32; 6,468), SES, ZES, and paclitaxel-coated balloons (DCB-PTX) ranked highest (95.0%, 80.0%, and 78.3%). For MI (37; 11,602), SES, DCB-PTX, and ZES ranked highest (79.0%, 78.7%, and 68.5%). Representative effects showed SES reduced TLR versus bare-metal stents (BMS) (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.15-0.43) and MI versus BMS (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.79). Conventional approaches such as BMS, plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), and gold-plated balloon angioplasty (GPBA) ranked lowest across outcomes.
CONCLUSION: SES provides the most consistent clinical benefit for coronary SVD. ZES, EES, and DCB-PTX are effective alternatives in selected settings, whereas BMS, POBA, and GPBA are less effective. These findings offer comparative evidence to guide device selection in SVD.
METHODS: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 15 August 2025. Eligible studies were English-language randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with angiographic SVD defined as reference vessel diameter ≤3.0 mm, comparing PCI strategies, and reporting target lesion revascularization (TLR), binary restenosis (BR), or myocardial infarction (MI). A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis generated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and treatment rankings using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).
RESULTS: Thirty-nine trials including 14,503 patients met the criteria. For TLR (37 studies; 11,980 patients), the highest SUCRA values were observed with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES 90.1%), zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES 83.9%), and everolimus-eluting stents (EES 82.2%). For BR (32; 6,468), SES, ZES, and paclitaxel-coated balloons (DCB-PTX) ranked highest (95.0%, 80.0%, and 78.3%). For MI (37; 11,602), SES, DCB-PTX, and ZES ranked highest (79.0%, 78.7%, and 68.5%). Representative effects showed SES reduced TLR versus bare-metal stents (BMS) (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.15-0.43) and MI versus BMS (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.79). Conventional approaches such as BMS, plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA), and gold-plated balloon angioplasty (GPBA) ranked lowest across outcomes.
CONCLUSION: SES provides the most consistent clinical benefit for coronary SVD. ZES, EES, and DCB-PTX are effective alternatives in selected settings, whereas BMS, POBA, and GPBA are less effective. These findings offer comparative evidence to guide device selection in SVD.