TY - JOUR
T1 - Acute vessel closure or major adverse cardiac events of drug-coated balloons and stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Gunawardena, Tharusha
AU - Corballis, Natasha
AU - Merinopoulos, Ioannis
AU - Tsampasian, Vasiliki
AU - Reinhold, Johannes
AU - Eccleshall, Simon
AU - Vassiliou, Vassilios S.
N1 - Funding information: Natasha Corballis and Vasiliki Tsampasian are NIHR Academic Clinical Fellows. Simon Eccleshall received funding for lectures and proctorship from B Braun, Medtronic and MedAlliance and funding for investigator-initiated research unrelated to this work from B Braun. Johannes Reinhold is an NIHR Senior Clinical Lecturer. Vassiliou receives funding for investigator-initiated research unrelated to this work from B Braun and Medtronic. This work was partially supported by the Norfolk Heart Trust. No direct funding was received for this systematic review and meta-analysis.
PY - 2022/12/15
Y1 - 2022/12/15
N2 - While the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) has become the first-line strategy for treating coronary artery disease, there are still drawbacks with their use. As our understanding of coronary artery anatomy and physiology evolves, growing evidence supports the use of drug-coated balloons (DCB) not only in the treatment of in-stent restenosis but also in de novo lesions. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine if there is a difference in outcomes when DCBs are used versus when stents are used. PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was acute vessel closure and the secondary outcomes were stent complications including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Eleven studies with a total of 2349 patients were included. No significant difference was found in terms of acute vessel closure between DCBs and all stents (2.6% vs. 1.0%, OR: 2.13 (0.74–6.44), I2: 4%, p = 0.16). Furthermore, there was no difference in MACE (6.8% vs. 10.1%, OR: 0.53 (0.27–1.04), I2: 48%, p = 0.06), all-cause mortality and target lesion revascularisation. This meta-analysis suggests that the use of DCBs is a safe alternative to stents when treating coronary artery disease.
AB - While the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) has become the first-line strategy for treating coronary artery disease, there are still drawbacks with their use. As our understanding of coronary artery anatomy and physiology evolves, growing evidence supports the use of drug-coated balloons (DCB) not only in the treatment of in-stent restenosis but also in de novo lesions. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine if there is a difference in outcomes when DCBs are used versus when stents are used. PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was acute vessel closure and the secondary outcomes were stent complications including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Eleven studies with a total of 2349 patients were included. No significant difference was found in terms of acute vessel closure between DCBs and all stents (2.6% vs. 1.0%, OR: 2.13 (0.74–6.44), I2: 4%, p = 0.16). Furthermore, there was no difference in MACE (6.8% vs. 10.1%, OR: 0.53 (0.27–1.04), I2: 48%, p = 0.06), all-cause mortality and target lesion revascularisation. This meta-analysis suggests that the use of DCBs is a safe alternative to stents when treating coronary artery disease.
UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomed2040035
U2 - 10.3390/biomed2040035
DO - 10.3390/biomed2040035
M3 - Article
VL - 2
SP - 442
EP - 451
JO - BioMed
JF - BioMed
SN - 2673-8430
IS - 4
ER -