Dataset Information

Drug-eluting balloon versus bare-mental stent and drug-eluting stent for de novo coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Drug-eluting balloon (DEB) has become an alternative option to drug-eluting stent (DES) for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, the effect of drug-eluting balloon with regular bare-mental stent (BMS) in de novo coronary artery disease (CAD) is unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of DEB with regular BMS compared to BMS or DES in de novo CAD.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of DEB+BMS in comparison with BMS or DES were obtained by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases through January 2016. Primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) and late lumen loss (LLL). Secondary endpoints included death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), stent thrombosis (ST), binary restenosis, and minimum lumen diameter (MLD). Dichotomous and continuous data were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), respectively, and analyzed using a random-effects model.

Results

A total of 14 RCTs involving 2281 patients were included in this meta-analysis. DEB+BMS showed significantly less MACEs (OR: 0.67, 95%CI 0.45 to 0.99, P = 0.04) and reduced LLL (MD: -0.30 mm, 95%CI: -0.48 mm to -0.11 mm, P = 0.001) compared with BMS. Meanwhile, treatment with DEB+BMS had disadvantages over DES in terms of MACEs (OR: 1.94, 95%CI 1.24 to 3.05, P = 0.004), LLL (MD: 0.20 mm, 95%CI: 0.07 mm to 0.33 mm, P = 0.003), TLR (OR: 2.53, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.72, P = 0.003), and MLD (MD: -0.25 mm, 95%CI: -0.42 mm to -0.09 mm, P = 0.003).

Conclusions

This limited evidence demonstrated that treatment with DEB+BMS appears to be effective in de novo CAD. In addition, DEB+ BMS clearly showed superiority to BMS, but is inferior to DES in the treatment of patients with de novo CAD. Hence, DES (especially new generation DES) should be recommended for patients with de novo CAD.

SUBMITTER: Cui K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5405921 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of a drug-eluting balloon for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions remains to be evaluated. A previous trial in patients with stable and unstable angina comparing a bare metal stent mounted on a drug-eluting balloon with a sirolimus-eluting stent failed to meet the prespecified non-inferiority criteria versus the sirolimus-eluting stent. The stent struts of a bare metal stent pre-mounted on a drug-eluting balloon may prevent the appropriate delivery of drugs to the vessel wall and may result in reduced efficacy. In the present study we will therefore evaluate the efficacy of a drug-eluting balloon for treating de novo coronary artery lesions using a strategy designed to uniformly deliver drug to the vessel with a bare metal stent.Methods/designThe Comparison of Drug-Eluting Balloon first study is a prospective, randomized, open-label trial designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of first using a drug-eluting balloon (Sequent please; B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany) followed by a bare metal stent (Coroflex Blue; B. Braun) compared with using a drug-eluting stent (Resolute Integrity; Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) for de novo coronary artery lesions. The primary endpoint of the study is in-segment late loss at 9 months measured by quantitative coronary angiography. Secondary endpoints include angiographic findings such as angiographic success, device success, binary angiographic restenosis, and clinical outcomes such as procedural success, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. A total of 180 patients will be enrolled in the study.DiscussionThe Comparison of Drug-Eluting Balloon first study will evaluate the clinical efficacy, angiographic outcomes and safety of a drug-eluting balloon first followed by a bare metal stent compared with a drug-eluting stent for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov: NCT01539603.

Project description:BackgroundDrug-coated balloon as a novel therapeutic strategy has been used to treat restenosis in cases of bare metal and drug-eluting stents. However, evidence of its safety and efficacy is scarce in de novo small coronary artery vessel disease. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the drug-coated balloon and the drug-eluting stent.MethodsThe PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases were searched for studies published up to October 17, 2018. Studies comparing the drug-coated balloon with the drug-eluting stent strategy in patients with de novo small coronary artery vessel disease (reference diameter, <3 mm) were identified. The clinical outcomes were nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiac death, all-cause death, target lesion revascularization, and target-vessel revascularization. Data were analyzed using the statistical software RevMan (version 5.3). Fixed effects models were performed to calculate the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Sensitivity analyses were used to detect potential sources of heterogeneity, while subgroup analyses were implemented to assess the differential effects.ResultsThree randomized controlled trials and 3 nonrandomized controlled studies were identified. Six studies including a total of 1800 patients compared the differences between the drug-coated balloon and the drug-eluting stent strategies in patients with de novo small coronary artery vessel disease. The results indicated that the drug-coated balloon strategy was associated with a significant reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.90, P = .02) compared with the drug-eluting stent strategy, while insignificant inter-strategy differences were observed in cardiac death (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73-3.33, P = .25), all-cause death (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25-1.23, P = .15), target lesion revascularization (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73-2.1, P = .43), and target-vessel revascularization (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59-1.52, P = .84).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that the drug-coated balloon strategy is noninferior to the drug-eluting stent strategy, delivering a good outcome in nonfatal myocardial infarction, and can be recommended as an optimal treatment strategy in patients with de novo small coronary artery vessel disease. Larger randomized controlled studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to further confirm the benefits of the drug-coated balloon strategy.

Project description:Neointimal hyperplasia plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of in-stent restenosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Drug-eluting balloons are a promising tool to prevent restenosis after coronary angioplasty. Moreover, an increased knowledge of the pathophysiology of restenosis my help improve therapeutic strategies.We present the design of an open-label, randomized three-arm clinical trial aimed to assess whether a strategy of bare-metal stent implantation with additional use of drug-eluting balloons, either before (pre-dilation) or after stenting (post-dilation), reduces the primary endpoint of in-stent neointimal hyperplasia area as compared with a strategy of bare-metal stent implantation alone. This primary endpoint will be assessed by optical coherence tomography at follow-up. Secondary endpoints will be the percentage of uncovered struts, and the percentage of struts with incomplete apposition. An ancillary study investigating the relation between systemic levels of endothelial progenitors cells and neointimal hyperplasia, and the interaction between endothelial progenitors cell levels and drug-eluting balloons has been planned. Thirty consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention will be randomized with a 1:1:1 design to bare-metal stent implantation alone (n?=?10); bare-metal stent implantation after pre-dilation with a drug-eluting balloon (n?=?10); or bare-metal stent implantation followed by post-dilation with a drug-eluting balloon (n?=?10). Six-month follow-up coronary angiography with optical coherence tomography imaging of the stented segment will be performed in all patients. Blood samples for the assessment of endothelial progenitors cell levels will be collected on admission and at 6?months.Experimental and early clinical data showed that inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia may be obtained by local administration of antiproliferative drugs loaded on the surface of angioplasty balloons. The INtimal hyPerplasia evAluated by oCT in de novo COROnary lesions treated by drug-eluting balloon and bare-metal stent (IN-PACT CORO) trial was conceived to test the superiority of a strategy of bare-metal stent implantation with additional drug-eluting balloon use (either before or after stenting) versus a strategy of bare-metal stent implantation alone for the reduction of neointimal hyperplasia. We also planned an ancillary study to assess the role of endothelial progenitors cells in the pathophysiology of neointimal hyperplasia.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01057563.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, drug-eluting balloon (DEB) appears to be an attractive alternative option for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Nevertheless, the clinical outcomes of DEB have seldom been compared to those of new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES). Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DEB compared to those of new-generation DES in the treatment of ISR.MethodsA comprehensive search of electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to November 2, 2017 was performed to identify pertinent articles comparing DEB to new-generation DES for the treatment of ISR. In addition, conference proceedings for the scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, and EuroPCR were also searched. The primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR) at the longest follow-up. Dichotomous variables were presented as risk ratios (RR s) with 95% confidence intervals (CI s), while the overall RR s were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.ResultsFive randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight observational studies involving 2743 patients were included in the present meta-analysis. Overall, DEB was comparable to new-generation DES in terms of TLR (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.89-1.72, P = 0.21), cardiac death (RR = 1.55, 95% CI: 0.89-2.71, P = 0.12), major adverse cardiovascular event (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.98-1.48, P = 0.07), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.72-1.76, P = 0.62), and stent thrombosis (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.38-2.42, P = 0.92). However, DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality than new-generation DES (RR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.09-2.50, P = 0.02). This was especially true in the real-world observational studies (RR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.12-2.88, P = 0.02). In RCTs, however, no significant difference was found between the two treatment strategies in the risk of all-cause mortality.ConclusionsThe current meta-analysis showed that DEB and new-generation DES had comparable safety and efficacy for the treatment of ISR in RCTs. However, treatment with DEB was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality in the real-world nonrandomized studies.