BACKGROUND: Drug eluting balloons (DEB) have been developed to overcome the limitations of drug eluting stents (DES), but clinic results of various DEB studies are still not consistent. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to compare outcomes of DEB and DES for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Medline/Web databases were searched for studies comparing DEB and DES for obstructive CAD, reporting late lumen loss (LLL) and rates for overall mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: 8 studies (1462 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with DES, DEB treated patients showed non-significantly higher LLL (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.15 to 0.78, P=0.18) and non-significantly higher rate of binary restenosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.40 [0.68-2.48], P=0.36). Mortality (OR 1.13[0.54-2.37], P=0.74), MI (OR 0.95, [0.50-1.80], P=0.87), ST (OR 1.12, [0.34-4.19], P=0.77) and TLR rates (OR 1.19[0.60-2.38], P=0.61) were similar between the 2 treatments. A pre-specified meta-regression analysis showed that LLL WMD and TLR OR were inversely correlated to the prevalence of diabetes (P<0.0001) and directly correlated to reference coronary diameters (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis showed that compared to DES, DEB use resulted in similar clinical efficacy and safety. Thus DEB could be considered a reasonable alternative to DES for the treatment of CAD in selected clinical settings (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01760200).
BACKGROUND:Drug eluting balloons (DEB) have been developed to overcome the limitations of drug eluting stents (DES), but clinic results of various DEB studies are still not consistent. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to compare outcomes of DEB and DES for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Medline/Web databases were searched for studies comparing DEB and DES for obstructive CAD, reporting late lumen loss (LLL) and rates for overall mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: 8 studies (1462 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with DES, DEB treated patients showed non-significantly higher LLL (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.15 to 0.78, P=0.18) and non-significantly higher rate of binary restenosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.40 [0.68-2.48], P=0.36). Mortality (OR 1.13[0.54-2.37], P=0.74), MI (OR 0.95, [0.50-1.80], P=0.87), ST (OR 1.12, [0.34-4.19], P=0.77) and TLR rates (OR 1.19[0.60-2.38], P=0.61) were similar between the 2 treatments. A pre-specified meta-regression analysis showed that LLL WMD and TLR OR were inversely correlated to the prevalence of diabetes (P<0.0001) and directly correlated to reference coronary diameters (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis showed that compared to DES, DEB use resulted in similar clinical efficacy and safety. Thus DEB could be considered a reasonable alternative to DES for the treatment of CAD in selected clinical settings (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01760200).
Authors: Adrienn Tornyos; Dániel Aradi; Iván G Horváth; Attila Kónyi; Balázs Magyari; Tünde Pintér; András Vorobcsuk; Dániel Tornyos; András Komócsi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 3.240