Yaowang Lin1, Xin Sun1, Huadong Liu1, Xinli Pang1, Shaohong Dong2. 1. Department of Cardiology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, first affiliated Hospital of South University of Science and Technology, No. 1017, Dongmen Northern Road, 518020, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. 2. Department of Cardiology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medical College of Jinan University, first affiliated Hospital of South University of Science and Technology, No. 1017, Dongmen Northern Road, 518020, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. xnkdsh@yeah.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies examining the efficiency of drug-coated balloon (DCB) compared to drug-eluting stents (DES) for de novo lesions in large vessels have reported inconsistent results. OBJECTIVE: This comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical trials compared the efficacy and safety of DCB and DES for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. METHODS: The authors formally searched electronic databases before October 2019 to identify randomized and non-randomized clinical trials (RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively). Clinical trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared DCB with DES in patients with coronary lumen diameters >2.5 mm. RESULTS: Three RCTs and one non-RCT with a total of 321 patients were included in our meta-analysis (DCB group = 152, DES group = 169). The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.07 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.31, 0.316; P = 0.548) and the secondary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.17 (95% CI: 0.46, 2.95; P = 0.746). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicated that DCB might be non-inferior to DES as evidenced by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) assessed at 6-9 months after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with coronary artery disease.
BACKGROUND: Studies examining the efficiency of drug-coated balloon (DCB) compared to drug-eluting stents (DES) for de novo lesions in large vessels have reported inconsistent results. OBJECTIVE: This comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical trials compared the efficacy and safety of DCB and DES for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. METHODS: The authors formally searched electronic databases before October 2019 to identify randomized and non-randomized clinical trials (RCTs and non-RCTs, respectively). Clinical trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared DCB with DES in patients with coronary lumen diameters >2.5 mm. RESULTS: Three RCTs and one non-RCT with a total of 321 patients were included in our meta-analysis (DCB group = 152, DES group = 169). The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.07 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.31, 0.316; P = 0.548) and the secondary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.17 (95% CI: 0.46, 2.95; P = 0.746). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicated that DCB might be non-inferior to DES as evidenced by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) assessed at 6-9 months after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with coronary artery disease.
Entities:
Keywords:
Coronary stenosis; DCB; DES; De novo lesion; Percutaneous coronary intervention
Authors: Mingduo Zhang; Jingwen Yong; Yuan Zhou; Min Zhang; Xiantao Song; Shubin Qiao; Lefeng Wang; Qian Tong; Li Zhang; Bei Shi Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2022-04