Smit Patel1, Tatiana Svermova1, Anne Burke-Gaffney1, Richard G Bogle2. 1. Vascular Biology, Cardiovascular Science, National Heart & Lung Institute (NHLI), Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. 2. Cardiology Clinical Academic Group, St George's University Foundation Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for treatment of de novo coronary lesions remains controversial. The present systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessed DEB with bare-metal stents (BMS) and also DEB with provisional bail-out stents ('DEB-only' strategy), to other conventional options: plain-old balloon angioplasty (POBA), BMS and drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: A systematic literature search from January 2000 until May 2017 was conducted. Primary outcome measure, late lumen loss (LLL); and secondary outcomes; binary restenosis, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death and stent thrombosis were analysed. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were included with 2,616 patients. Several comparative groups showed significant differences. DEB with BMS were inferior to DES for LLL [mean difference (MD) =0.12 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.03 to 0.22; P=0.01]; and binary restenosis [risk ratio (RR) =1.89; (CI, 1.13 to 3.18); P=0.02]. DEB with BMS was superior to BMS for LLL [MD =-0.27 mm; (-0.45 to -0.10); P=0.002]; and MACE [RR =0.64; (0.46 to 0.90); P=0.010]. Finally, DEB alone was superior to POBA for LLL [MD =-0.39 mm; (-0.67 to -0.11); P=0.006] and binary restenosis [RR =0.20; (0.05 to 0.85); P=0.03] in bifurcation lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis showed that whilst DEB with BMS is superior to BMS alone, the combination is inferior to DES for treatment of de novo coronary lesions. Thus, DEB + BMS should not be applied in de novo lesions unless in patients who have absolute contraindications to DES. DEB alone, however, should be considered for relative contraindications to DES such as small vessel disease and bifurcation lesions.
BACKGROUND: Efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for treatment of de novo coronary lesions remains controversial. The present systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessed DEB with bare-metal stents (BMS) and also DEB with provisional bail-out stents ('DEB-only' strategy), to other conventional options: plain-old balloon angioplasty (POBA), BMS and drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: A systematic literature search from January 2000 until May 2017 was conducted. Primary outcome measure, late lumen loss (LLL); and secondary outcomes; binary restenosis, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death and stent thrombosis were analysed. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were included with 2,616 patients. Several comparative groups showed significant differences. DEB with BMS were inferior to DES for LLL [mean difference (MD) =0.12 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.03 to 0.22; P=0.01]; and binary restenosis [risk ratio (RR) =1.89; (CI, 1.13 to 3.18); P=0.02]. DEB with BMS was superior to BMS for LLL [MD =-0.27 mm; (-0.45 to -0.10); P=0.002]; and MACE [RR =0.64; (0.46 to 0.90); P=0.010]. Finally, DEB alone was superior to POBA for LLL [MD =-0.39 mm; (-0.67 to -0.11); P=0.006] and binary restenosis [RR =0.20; (0.05 to 0.85); P=0.03] in bifurcation lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis showed that whilst DEB with BMS is superior to BMS alone, the combination is inferior to DES for treatment of de novo coronary lesions. Thus, DEB + BMS should not be applied in de novo lesions unless in patients who have absolute contraindications to DES. DEB alone, however, should be considered for relative contraindications to DES such as small vessel disease and bifurcation lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bare-metal stents (BMS); de novo lesions; drug-eluting balloons (DEB); drug-eluting stents (DES); plain-old balloon angioplasty (POBA)
Authors: Pieter R Stella; Anouar Belkacemi; Christophe Dubois; Hendrik Nathoe; Jo Dens; Christoph Naber; Tom Adriaenssens; Eric van Belle; Pieter Doevendans; Pierfrancesco Agostoni Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Dean J Kereiakes; Robert W Yeh; Joseph M Massaro; Priscilla Driscoll-Shempp; Donald E Cutlip; P Gabriel Steg; Anthony H Gershlick; Harald Darius; Ian T Meredith; John Ormiston; Jean Francois Tanguay; Stephan Windecker; Kirk N Garratt; David E Kandzari; David P Lee; Daniel I Simon; Adrian Corneliu Iancu; Jaroslaw Trebacz; Laura Mauri Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anouar Belkacemi; Pierfrancesco Agostoni; Hendrik M Nathoe; Michiel Voskuil; ChunLai Shao; Eric Van Belle; Thierry Wildbergh; Luigi Politi; Pieter A Doevendans; Giuseppe M Sangiorgi; Pieter R Stella Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Tudor C Poerner; Sylvia Otto; Johannes Gassdorf; Kristina Nitsche; Florian Janiak; Bruno Scheller; Björn Goebel; Christian Jung; Hans R Figulla Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Rosli Mohd Ali; Ralf Degenhardt; Robaayah Zambahari; Damras Tresukosol; Wan Azman Wan Ahmad; Haizal bin Haron Kamar; Sim Kui-Hian; Tiong Kiam Ong; Omar bin Ismail; Safari bin Elis; Wasan Udychalerm; Hanns Ackermann; Michael Boxberger; Martin Unverdorben Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 6.534