Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloons With Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
{"title":"Comparison of Drug-Coated Balloons With Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.06.028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In-stent restenosis (ISR) is the gradual narrowing of the stented coronary segment, presenting as angina or leading to an acute myocardial infarction. Although its incidence has decreased with the use of newer drug-eluting stents (DES), it still carries significant mortality and morbidity risks. We compared the 2 most common interventions for managing DES-related ISR: drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and DES. Electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials comparing DCB with DES in patients with DES-ISR. The Mantel–Haenszel method with a random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios. Five trials comprising 1,100 patients (577 in DCB and 523 in DES group) were included in the final study. The mean follow-up was 42 months. DCB was found to have a higher risk for target lesion revascularization (risk ratio 1.41, p = 0.02) compared with DES. No difference was observed in all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, or stroke between the 2 intervention arms. In conclusion, management of DES-ISR with DCB has a higher risk of target lesion revascularization compared with re-stenting with DES. The 2 therapeutic interventions are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety profile.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914924004636","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In-stent restenosis (ISR) is the gradual narrowing of the stented coronary segment, presenting as angina or leading to an acute myocardial infarction. Although its incidence has decreased with the use of newer drug-eluting stents (DES), it still carries significant mortality and morbidity risks. We compared the 2 most common interventions for managing DES-related ISR: drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and DES. Electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials comparing DCB with DES in patients with DES-ISR. The Mantel–Haenszel method with a random-effects model was used to calculate pooled risk ratios. Five trials comprising 1,100 patients (577 in DCB and 523 in DES group) were included in the final study. The mean follow-up was 42 months. DCB was found to have a higher risk for target lesion revascularization (risk ratio 1.41, p = 0.02) compared with DES. No difference was observed in all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, or stroke between the 2 intervention arms. In conclusion, management of DES-ISR with DCB has a higher risk of target lesion revascularization compared with re-stenting with DES. The 2 therapeutic interventions are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety profile.

支架内再狭窄患者使用药物涂层球囊与药物洗脱支架的比较:系统回顾与元分析》。
支架内再狭窄(ISR)是指支架内冠状动脉段逐渐狭窄,表现为心绞痛或导致急性心肌梗死。虽然随着新型药物洗脱支架(DES)的使用,ISR的发生率有所下降,但其死亡率和发病率仍然很高。我们比较了两种最常见的干预方法,即药物涂层球囊 (DCB) 和药物洗脱支架 (DES),以管理与 DES 相关的 ISR。我们检索了电子数据库,以确定在DES相关ISR患者中比较DCB与DES的所有随机对照试验(RCT)。采用随机效应模型的Mantel-Haenszel方法计算汇总风险比(RR)。最终研究纳入了五项试验,共1100例患者(DCB组577例,DES组523例)。平均随访时间为42个月。与DES相比,DCB的靶病变血运重建(TLR)风险更高(RR:1.41,P:0.02)。在全因死亡率、靶血管血运重建(TVR)、心肌梗死或中风方面,两个干预组之间未观察到差异。总之,使用DCB治疗DES-ISR与使用DES再支架相比,TLR的风险更高。两种治疗方法在疗效和安全性方面不相上下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信