Efficacy of Drug Coated Balloon versus Drug Eluting Stent for Patients with De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Affan Ul Haq, Amina Suhail, Waseh Ahsan, Hamza Maqbool, Ayesha Nawal, Hamza Hassan, Musa Khan Bungish, Muhammad Ali Shahid, Hakim Ullah Wazir, Humayoun Yousaf, Mohammad Ebad Ur Rehman, Huzaifa Ahmad Cheema, Asma'a Munasar Ali Alsubari, Muhammad Aslam Khan, Bilawal Nadeem, Raheel Ahmed, Adeel Ahmad
{"title":"Efficacy of Drug Coated Balloon versus Drug Eluting Stent for Patients with De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Affan Ul Haq, Amina Suhail, Waseh Ahsan, Hamza Maqbool, Ayesha Nawal, Hamza Hassan, Musa Khan Bungish, Muhammad Ali Shahid, Hakim Ullah Wazir, Humayoun Yousaf, Mohammad Ebad Ur Rehman, Huzaifa Ahmad Cheema, Asma'a Munasar Ali Alsubari, Muhammad Aslam Khan, Bilawal Nadeem, Raheel Ahmed, Adeel Ahmad","doi":"10.1159/000547099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of drug coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty with drug eluting stent (DES) for the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of major databases, including Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase and clinicaltrials.gov, to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB and DES. Mantel-Haenszel model was used for dichotomous outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model using RevMan software.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen RCTs with a total of 4,686 patients were included. The analysis found no significant differences between DCB and DES for all-cause mortality (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.81-1.53, p = 0.51) or myocardial infarction (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.56-1.15, p = 0.23). Similarly, no significant differences were observed for cardiac death (RR: 1.33, 95% CI: 0.86-2.05, p = 0.19), target lesion revascularization (RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.64-2.21, p = 0.59), or target vessel revascularization (RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.79-2.28, p = 0.28).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety outcomes for DCBs and DES in the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease. While DCBs offer a viable alternative, particularly for high-risk patients or those unsuitable for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, further large-scale studies are warranted to strengthen these findings and refine clinical recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":520708,"journal":{"name":"Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre","volume":" ","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000547099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of drug coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty with drug eluting stent (DES) for the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of major databases, including Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase and clinicaltrials.gov, to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB and DES. Mantel-Haenszel model was used for dichotomous outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model using RevMan software.

Results: Thirteen RCTs with a total of 4,686 patients were included. The analysis found no significant differences between DCB and DES for all-cause mortality (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.81-1.53, p = 0.51) or myocardial infarction (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.56-1.15, p = 0.23). Similarly, no significant differences were observed for cardiac death (RR: 1.33, 95% CI: 0.86-2.05, p = 0.19), target lesion revascularization (RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.64-2.21, p = 0.59), or target vessel revascularization (RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.79-2.28, p = 0.28).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety outcomes for DCBs and DES in the treatment of de novo coronary artery disease. While DCBs offer a viable alternative, particularly for high-risk patients or those unsuitable for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, further large-scale studies are warranted to strengthen these findings and refine clinical recommendations.

药物包膜球囊与药物洗脱支架治疗新发冠状动脉疾病的疗效:系统综述和meta分析
目的:本荟萃分析比较了药物包膜球囊(DCB)血管成形术与药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗新发冠状动脉疾病的疗效和安全性。方法:按照PRISMA指南,系统检索Cochrane、MEDLINE、Embase和clinicaltrials.gov等主要数据库,筛选比较DCB和DES的符合条件的随机对照试验(rct),采用Mantel-Haenszel模型进行二分类结果分析。风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)采用RevMan软件的随机效应模型计算。结果:纳入13项随机对照试验,共4686例患者。分析发现DCB和DES在全因死亡率(RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.81-1.53, p = 0.51)或心肌梗死(RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.56-1.15, p = 0.23)方面无显著差异。同样,在心源性死亡(RR: 1.33, 95% CI: 0.86-2.05, p = 0.19)、靶病变血运重建术(RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.64-2.21, p = 0.59)或靶血管血运重建术(RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.79-2.28, p = 0.28)方面也没有观察到显著差异。结论:该荟萃分析显示DCBs和DES治疗新发冠状动脉疾病的疗效和安全性相当。虽然dcb提供了一种可行的替代方案,特别是对于高危患者或不适合长期双重抗血小板治疗的患者,但需要进一步的大规模研究来加强这些发现并完善临床建议。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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