Primary Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Native Atherosclerotic Femoropopliteal Lesions: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.7 2区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Alessio Mario Cosacco, Gladiol Zenunaj, Pierfilippo Acciarri, Aaron Thomas Fargion
{"title":"Primary Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Native Atherosclerotic Femoropopliteal Lesions: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Alessio Mario Cosacco, Gladiol Zenunaj, Pierfilippo Acciarri, Aaron Thomas Fargion","doi":"10.1177/15266028251344877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the clinical outcomes after endovascular treatment of native femoropopliteal lesions with a drug-coated balloon (DCB) and drug-eluting stent (DES) as a primary option in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was performed through PubMed and Embase databases. Studies written in the English language and reporting a direct comparison of the outcomes between primary angioplasty with DCB and primary stenting with DES were included. The endpoints were considered the primary patency (PP), clinical-driven target lesion revascularization (cdTLR), major adverse limb events (free-MALE), and freedom from all-cause mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eleven studies were considered eligible for the metanalysis (3 randomized clinical trials and 8 cohort studies). Overall, 3231 femoropopliteal lesions in 3137 patients were included, with DCB and DES performed in 1951 and 1280 lesions, respectively. No differences were found in demographics, clinical limb presentation, lesions length [173.9±80.2 mm DES vs 195.1±103.3 mm DCB; odds ratio (OR) -2.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.26 to 6.38; p=0.59] and total occlusions (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.87-2.27; p=0.16). In the DCB group, there was a significant rate of adjunctive procedures such as atherectomy and bailout stenting OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.09-0.18; p<0.001). No differences among PP, cdTLR, free-MALE and freedom from all-cause mortality at 1 year for DCB and DES: OR 1.11 (95% CI 0.74-1.66, p=0.61); OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.72-1.41, p=0.97); OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.69-1.69, p=0.74) and OR 1.85 (95% CI 0.82-4.17, p=0.14) respectively. No differences were found at 2 years: OR 0.89 (95% CI 0.64-1.23, p=0.47); OR 0.79 (95% CI 0.49-1.27, p=0.32); OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.49-1.10, p=0.14); OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.75-1.96, p=0.44) respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both approaches proved to be effective and safe for treating complex femoropopliteal lesions, with comparable clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. In the DCB arm, adjunctive procedures such as atherectomy and bailout stenting were required to optimize the results.Clinical ImpactThe introduction of drug-coated technologies, such as drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs), has significantly improved clinical outcomes for native femoropopliteal lesions. However, despite ongoing advancements in drug-coated device technology, the optimal treatment approach remains unclear due to limited comparative data in the literature. This meta-analysis aims to bridge this gap by reviewing current evidence, highlighting the latest developments, and providing valuable insights that may aid clinical decision-making in the management of native femoropopliteal lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50210,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"15266028251344877"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028251344877","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes after endovascular treatment of native femoropopliteal lesions with a drug-coated balloon (DCB) and drug-eluting stent (DES) as a primary option in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease.

Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed through PubMed and Embase databases. Studies written in the English language and reporting a direct comparison of the outcomes between primary angioplasty with DCB and primary stenting with DES were included. The endpoints were considered the primary patency (PP), clinical-driven target lesion revascularization (cdTLR), major adverse limb events (free-MALE), and freedom from all-cause mortality.

Results: Eleven studies were considered eligible for the metanalysis (3 randomized clinical trials and 8 cohort studies). Overall, 3231 femoropopliteal lesions in 3137 patients were included, with DCB and DES performed in 1951 and 1280 lesions, respectively. No differences were found in demographics, clinical limb presentation, lesions length [173.9±80.2 mm DES vs 195.1±103.3 mm DCB; odds ratio (OR) -2.44; 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.26 to 6.38; p=0.59] and total occlusions (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.87-2.27; p=0.16). In the DCB group, there was a significant rate of adjunctive procedures such as atherectomy and bailout stenting OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.09-0.18; p<0.001). No differences among PP, cdTLR, free-MALE and freedom from all-cause mortality at 1 year for DCB and DES: OR 1.11 (95% CI 0.74-1.66, p=0.61); OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.72-1.41, p=0.97); OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.69-1.69, p=0.74) and OR 1.85 (95% CI 0.82-4.17, p=0.14) respectively. No differences were found at 2 years: OR 0.89 (95% CI 0.64-1.23, p=0.47); OR 0.79 (95% CI 0.49-1.27, p=0.32); OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.49-1.10, p=0.14); OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.75-1.96, p=0.44) respectively.

Conclusions: Both approaches proved to be effective and safe for treating complex femoropopliteal lesions, with comparable clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. In the DCB arm, adjunctive procedures such as atherectomy and bailout stenting were required to optimize the results.Clinical ImpactThe introduction of drug-coated technologies, such as drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DESs), has significantly improved clinical outcomes for native femoropopliteal lesions. However, despite ongoing advancements in drug-coated device technology, the optimal treatment approach remains unclear due to limited comparative data in the literature. This meta-analysis aims to bridge this gap by reviewing current evidence, highlighting the latest developments, and providing valuable insights that may aid clinical decision-making in the management of native femoropopliteal lesions.

原发性药物包被球囊与药物洗脱支架治疗原发性股腘动脉粥样硬化病变:最新的系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的:评价药物包被球囊(DCB)和药物洗脱支架(DES)作为有症状的外周动脉疾病患者血管内治疗原发性股腘动脉病变的临床效果。材料和方法:通过PubMed和Embase数据库进行全面的文献检索。用英文撰写的研究报告直接比较了DCB血管成形术和DES支架植入术的结果。终点包括原发性通畅(PP)、临床驱动的靶病变血运重建术(cdTLR)、主要肢体不良事件(free-MALE)和无全因死亡率。结果:11项研究被认为符合荟萃分析(3项随机临床试验和8项队列研究)。总共纳入3137例患者的3231个股腘动脉病变,分别在1951个和1280个病变中行DCB和DES。在人口统计学、临床肢体表现、病变长度(173.9±80.2 mm DES vs 195.1±103.3 mm DCB)方面没有发现差异;优势比(OR) -2.44;95%置信区间(CI) -11.26 ~ 6.38;p=0.59]和全闭塞(OR 1.41;95% ci 0.87-2.27;p = 0.16)。在DCB组中,辅助手术(如动脉粥样硬化切除术和救助支架置入术)的发生率显著高于0.13 (95% CI 0.09-0.18;结论:两种方法均被证明是治疗复杂股腘动脉病变的有效和安全的,两组之间的临床结果相当。在DCB组中,需要辅助手术,如动脉粥样硬化切除术和救助支架置入术来优化结果。药物包被技术的引入,如药物包被球囊(DCBs)和药物洗脱支架(DESs),显著改善了原发性股腘动脉病变的临床结果。然而,尽管药物包被装置技术不断进步,但由于文献中比较数据有限,最佳治疗方法仍不清楚。本荟萃分析旨在通过回顾现有证据,突出最新进展,并提供有价值的见解,以帮助临床决策管理先天性股腘窝病变,从而弥合这一差距。
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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Endovascular Therapy (formerly the Journal of Endovascular Surgery) was established in 1994 as a forum for all physicians, scientists, and allied healthcare professionals who are engaged or interested in peripheral endovascular techniques and technology. An official publication of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists (ISEVS), the Journal of Endovascular Therapy publishes peer-reviewed articles of interest to clinicians and researchers in the field of peripheral endovascular interventions.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信