Dataset Information

Comparison of drug-coated balloon angioplasty versus common balloon angioplasty for arteriovenous fistula stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have been used in dialysis patients with arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis, but whether DCBs have advantages over ordinary balloons is still controversial. A meta-analysis was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of DCBs and common balloons (CBs) in the treatment of AVF stenosis. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) databases for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the comparison of DCB angioplasty versus CB angioplasty for AVF stenosis in dialysis patients and reported at least one outcome of interest. The results showed that the DCB group had a higher first-stage patency rate of the target lesion 6 months [odds ratio, OR = 2.31, 95% confidence interval, CI: (1.69, 3.15), p < .01] and 12 months [OR = 2.09, 95% CI: (1.50, 2.91), p < .01] after surgery. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups at 6 months [OR = 0.85, 95% CI: (0.47, 1.52), p = .58] and 12 months [OR = 0.99, 95% CI: (0.60, 1.64), p = .97]. Compared with CB, DCBs as a new endovascular treatment for AVF stenosis have a higher primary patency rate of target lesions and can delay the occurrence of restenosis. There is no evidence that DCB can increase the mortality of patients.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10436783 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of drug-coated balloon angioplasty versus common balloon angioplasty for arteriovenous fistula stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhang Yong Y Yuan Fan-Li FL Hu Xiang-Yang XY Wang Qi-Bing QB Zou Zhen-Wu ZW Li Zhen-Guo ZG

Clinical cardiology 20230707 8

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have been used in dialysis patients with arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis, but whether DCBs have advantages over ordinary balloons is still controversial. A meta-analysis was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of DCBs and common balloons (CBs) in the treatment of AVF stenosis. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI) databases for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the comparison of DCB angioplasty versus C ...[more]

PMID: 37417371

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivePrimary nitinol stenting (PNS) and drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty are two of the most common endovascular interventions for femoropopliteal atherosclerotic disease. Although many prospective randomized controlled trials have compared PNS or DCB with plain balloon angioplasty (POBA), no studies have directly compared PNS against DCB therapy. The purpose of this network meta-analysis is to determine whether there is a significant difference in outcomes between PNS and DCB.MethodsThe primary outcome measure was binary restenosis, the secondary outcome measures were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and change in the ankle-brachial index (ABI). Outcomes were evaluated at 6, 12, and 24 months. A literature review identified all randomized controlled trials published before March 2020 that compared DCB with POBA or PNS with POBA in the treatment of native atherosclerotic lesions of the femoropopliteal artery. Studies were excluded if they contained in-stent stenosis or tibial artery disease that could not be delineated out in a subgroup analysis. Network meta-analysis was performed using the network and mvmeta commands in STATA 14.ResultsTwenty-seven publications covering 19 trials were identified; 8 trials compared PNS with POBA and 11 trials compared DCB with POBA. The odds of freedom from binary restenosis for patients treated with DCB compared with PNS at 6 months was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-2.22), at 12 months was 1.67 (95% CI, 1.04-2.68), and at 24 months was 1.36 (95% CI, 0.78-2.37). The odds of freedom from TLR for patients treated with DCB compared with PNS at 6 months was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.12-3.80), at 12 months was 1.89 (95% CI, 1.04-3.45), and at 24 months was 1.68 (95% CI, 0.82-3.44). The mean increase in ABI for patients treated with PNS compared with DCB at 6 months was 0.06 higher (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.15), at 12 months was 0.05 higher (95% CI, 0.00-0.09), and at 24 months was 0.07 higher (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.14).ConclusionsBoth DCB and PNS demonstrated a lower rate of binary restenosis compared with POBA at the 6-, 12-, and 24-month timepoints. When comparing DCB with PNS through network meta-analysis, DCB had a statistically lower rate of a binary restenosis and TLR at the 12-month timepoint. This network meta-analysis demonstrates that both DCB and PNS are superior to POBA, and that PNS is a satisfactory substitute for DCB when paclitaxel is not desirable.

Project description:BackgroundPeripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a common and highly morbid disease. Although there have been recent advancements in the endovascular modalities to treat PAD, comparisons of these strategies, especially in the popliteal region, remain underinvestigated. The objective of this study was to compare midterm outcomes in patients with PAD undergoing treatment with both novel and SS compared with drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty.MethodsAll patients at a multi-institution health system treated for PAD in the popliteal region from 2011 to 2019 were identified. Presenting features, operative details, and outcomes were included in the analysis. Patients who underwent popliteal revascularization with stents were compared with DCB. SS were compared separately with novel dedicated stents. Two-year primary patency was the primary outcome.ResultsWe included 408 patients (72.7 ± 11.8 years old; 57.1% men) in the analysis. There were 221 (54.7%) patients who underwent popliteal stenting and 187 (45.3%) who underwent popliteal DCB. There were high rates of tissue loss in both groups (57.9% vs 50.8%; P = .14). Stented patients had longer lesions (112.4 ± 3.2 vs 100.2 ± 5.8 mm; P = .03) and higher rates of concomitant superficial femoral artery treatment (88.2% vs 39.6%; P < .01). Chronic total occlusions accounted for the majority of lesions treated (stent 62.4%, DCB 64.2%). Perioperative complications were similar between groups. Primary patency for the stented group was higher at two years than the DCB group (61.0% vs 46.1%; P = .03). When evaluating stented patients only, SS had higher 2-year patency than novel stents in the popliteal segment (69.6% vs 51.4%; P = .04). On multivariable analysis, stenosis, as opposed to chronic total occlusion, was associated with improved patency (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.96; P = .04), whereas novel stents were associated with worse primary patency (hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-3.73; P = .03).ConclusionsIn a population of patients with severe vascular disease, stents do not have inferior patency and limb salvage rates compared with DCB angioplasty when treating the popliteal region. For patients with advanced vascular disease, and especially tissue loss, stents and DCB are both beneficial when treating popliteal lesions.

Dataset Information

Comparison of drug-coated balloon angioplasty versus common balloon angioplasty for arteriovenous fistula stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparison of drug-coated balloon angioplasty versus common balloon angioplasty for arteriovenous fistula stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets