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.