BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023
Drug-coated balloons versus drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
МетаанализСтатьяНазвание 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, Hafez Abdelrahman, Atta Karim, Elsayed Hanaa, Abdelaziz Mohamed, Elaraby Ahmed, Kadhim Hallas, Mechi Ahmed, Ezzat Mahmoud, Fadel Ahmed, Nasr Ahmed, Bakr Ali, Ghaith Hazem S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are an established strategy for coronary artery disease. However, the new generation drug-eluting stent (DES) is recommended for patients with Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for coronary artery revascularization. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive appraisal of the efficacy of DCBs in patients with AMI undergoing PCI.
METHODS: We searched the WOS, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL till March 2023, for studies that compared DCBs versus DES in patients with AMI undergoing PCI. We used a random-effects model to compare major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, Late lumen Loss (LLL), and minimum lumen diameter (MLD) between the two groups.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies comprising 2644 patients were included. The pooled OR showed non-inferiority of DCB over DES in terms of MACE (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.57 to 1.40], p = 0.63). When we defined MACE as a composite of cardiac death, MI, and TLR; the pooled OR favored DCB over DES (OR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.28 to 0.9], p = 0.02). Moreover, DCB was not inferior to DES in terms of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.8, p = 0.73), cardiac mortality, (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.56, p = 0.29), MI (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.34 to 2.29, p = 0.79), stent thrombosis (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.35 to 4.23, p = 0.76), TLR (OR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.93, p = 0.8), LLL (MD = -0.6, 95% CI: -0.3 to 0.19, p = 0.64), or MLD (MD = -0.4, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.25, p = 0.76).
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis indicated that DCB intervention was not inferior to DES in the PCI setting in patients with AMI, and can be recommended as a feasible strategy in AMI.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023412757.
METHODS: We searched the WOS, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL till March 2023, for studies that compared DCBs versus DES in patients with AMI undergoing PCI. We used a random-effects model to compare major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiac death, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis, Late lumen Loss (LLL), and minimum lumen diameter (MLD) between the two groups.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies comprising 2644 patients were included. The pooled OR showed non-inferiority of DCB over DES in terms of MACE (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.57 to 1.40], p = 0.63). When we defined MACE as a composite of cardiac death, MI, and TLR; the pooled OR favored DCB over DES (OR = 0.50, 95% CI [0.28 to 0.9], p = 0.02). Moreover, DCB was not inferior to DES in terms of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.8, p = 0.73), cardiac mortality, (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.22 to 1.56, p = 0.29), MI (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.34 to 2.29, p = 0.79), stent thrombosis (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.35 to 4.23, p = 0.76), TLR (OR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.93, p = 0.8), LLL (MD = -0.6, 95% CI: -0.3 to 0.19, p = 0.64), or MLD (MD = -0.4, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.25, p = 0.76).
CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis indicated that DCB intervention was not inferior to DES in the PCI setting in patients with AMI, and can be recommended as a feasible strategy in AMI.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023412757.