Rodolfo Caminiti, Giampiero Vizzari, Alfonso Ielasi, Giampaolo Vetta, Antonio Parlavecchio, Domenico Giovanni Della Rocca, Carolina Montonati, Dario Pellegrini, Mariano Pellicano, Maurizio Tespili, Antonio Micari
{"title":"治疗新生大血管冠状动脉疾病的药物涂层球囊与药物洗脱支架:对涉及2888名患者的13项研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Rodolfo Caminiti, Giampiero Vizzari, Alfonso Ielasi, Giampaolo Vetta, Antonio Parlavecchio, Domenico Giovanni Della Rocca, Carolina Montonati, Dario Pellegrini, Mariano Pellicano, Maurizio Tespili, Antonio Micari","doi":"10.1007/s00392-024-02481-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis and small vessel, de novo, coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the use of this tool is increasing in everyday practice, data regarding performance in the treatment of de novo, large vessel CAD (LV-CAD) is still lacking. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in this setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to January 24, 2024, for studies which compared the efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels (≥ 2.5 mm), reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The analyzed outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), all-cause death (ACD), and late lumen loss (LLL) at follow-up. The effect size was estimated using a random effects model as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies) involving 2888 patients (DCB n = 1334; DES n = 1533) with de novo LV-CAD were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. No differences were observed between DCB and DES in terms of CVD (RR 0.49; 95% CI [0.23-1.03]; p = 0.06), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI [0.16-1.45]; p = 0.89), TLR (RR 0.73; 95% CI [0.40-1.34]; p = 0.32), ACD (RR 0.78; 95% CI [0.57-1.07]; p = 0.12), and LLL (MD - 0.14; 95% CI [- 0.30 to 0.02]; p = 0.10) at follow-up. DES proved a higher mean acute gain versus DCB [1.94 (1.73, 2.14) vs 1.31 (1.02, 1.60); p = 0.0006].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our meta-analysis showed that DCB PCI might provide a promising option for the management of selected, de novo LV-CAD compared to DES. However, more focused RCTs are needed to further prove the benefits of a \"metal-free\" strategy in this subset of CAD.</p>","PeriodicalId":10474,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Research in Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":"978-990"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for treating de novo large vessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 2888 patients.\",\"authors\":\"Rodolfo Caminiti, Giampiero Vizzari, Alfonso Ielasi, Giampaolo Vetta, Antonio Parlavecchio, Domenico Giovanni Della Rocca, Carolina Montonati, Dario Pellegrini, Mariano Pellicano, Maurizio Tespili, Antonio Micari\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00392-024-02481-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis and small vessel, de novo, coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the use of this tool is increasing in everyday practice, data regarding performance in the treatment of de novo, large vessel CAD (LV-CAD) is still lacking. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in this setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to January 24, 2024, for studies which compared the efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels (≥ 2.5 mm), reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The analyzed outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), all-cause death (ACD), and late lumen loss (LLL) at follow-up. The effect size was estimated using a random effects model as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies) involving 2888 patients (DCB n = 1334; DES n = 1533) with de novo LV-CAD were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. No differences were observed between DCB and DES in terms of CVD (RR 0.49; 95% CI [0.23-1.03]; p = 0.06), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI [0.16-1.45]; p = 0.89), TLR (RR 0.73; 95% CI [0.40-1.34]; p = 0.32), ACD (RR 0.78; 95% CI [0.57-1.07]; p = 0.12), and LLL (MD - 0.14; 95% CI [- 0.30 to 0.02]; p = 0.10) at follow-up. DES proved a higher mean acute gain versus DCB [1.94 (1.73, 2.14) vs 1.31 (1.02, 1.60); p = 0.0006].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our meta-analysis showed that DCB PCI might provide a promising option for the management of selected, de novo LV-CAD compared to DES. However, more focused RCTs are needed to further prove the benefits of a \\\"metal-free\\\" strategy in this subset of CAD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Research in Cardiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"978-990\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Research in Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-024-02481-8\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Research in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-024-02481-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介:药物涂层球囊(DCB)是治疗支架内再狭窄和小血管、新生冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的成熟治疗方案。虽然这种工具在日常实践中的使用越来越多,但在治疗新生大血管冠状动脉疾病(LV-CAD)方面仍缺乏相关数据。我们进行了一项系统性回顾和荟萃分析,以评估 DCB 与药物洗脱支架 (DES) 在这种情况下的疗效和安全性:截至2024年1月24日,我们在Medline、Embase和Cochrane电子数据库中进行了全面的文献检索,比较了DCB与DES治疗大血管(≥2.5毫米)新生病变的疗效和安全性,至少报告了一项相关临床结果(PROSPERO ID:CRD42023470417)。分析的结果包括心血管死亡(CVD)、心肌梗死(MI)、靶病变血管再通(TLR)、全因死亡(ACD)和随访时的晚期管腔缺损(LLL)。采用随机效应模型估算效应大小,即风险比(RR)、平均差(MD)和相对 95% 置信区间(CI):根据纳入标准,本荟萃分析共纳入13项研究(6项随机对照试验和7项观察性研究),涉及2888名新发LV-CAD患者(DCB n = 1334;DES n = 1533)。在心血管疾病(RR 0.49; 95% CI [0.23-1.03]; p = 0.06)、心肌梗死(RR 0.48; 95% CI [0.16-1.45]; p = 0.89)、TLR(RR 0.73;95% CI [0.40-1.34];p = 0.32)、ACD(RR 0.78;95% CI [0.57-1.07];p = 0.12)和随访时的 LLL(MD - 0.14;95% CI [- 0.30 to 0.02];p = 0.10)。DES的平均急性期增益高于DCB[1.94 (1.73, 2.14) vs 1.31 (1.02, 1.60);p = 0.0006]:我们的荟萃分析表明,与DES相比,DCB PCI可能是治疗选定的新发LV-CAD的一种有前途的选择。然而,还需要更多有针对性的 RCT,以进一步证明 "无金属 "策略对这部分 CAD 患者的益处。
Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for treating de novo large vessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 2888 patients.
Introduction: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) is an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis and small vessel, de novo, coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the use of this tool is increasing in everyday practice, data regarding performance in the treatment of de novo, large vessel CAD (LV-CAD) is still lacking. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in this setting.
Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to January 24, 2024, for studies which compared the efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels (≥ 2.5 mm), reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The analyzed outcomes were cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), all-cause death (ACD), and late lumen loss (LLL) at follow-up. The effect size was estimated using a random effects model as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI).
Results: A total of 13 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies) involving 2888 patients (DCB n = 1334; DES n = 1533) with de novo LV-CAD were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. No differences were observed between DCB and DES in terms of CVD (RR 0.49; 95% CI [0.23-1.03]; p = 0.06), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI [0.16-1.45]; p = 0.89), TLR (RR 0.73; 95% CI [0.40-1.34]; p = 0.32), ACD (RR 0.78; 95% CI [0.57-1.07]; p = 0.12), and LLL (MD - 0.14; 95% CI [- 0.30 to 0.02]; p = 0.10) at follow-up. DES proved a higher mean acute gain versus DCB [1.94 (1.73, 2.14) vs 1.31 (1.02, 1.60); p = 0.0006].
Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed that DCB PCI might provide a promising option for the management of selected, de novo LV-CAD compared to DES. However, more focused RCTs are needed to further prove the benefits of a "metal-free" strategy in this subset of CAD.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Research in Cardiology is an international journal for clinical cardiovascular research. It provides a forum for original and review articles as well as critical perspective articles. Articles are only accepted if they meet stringent scientific standards and have undergone peer review. The journal regularly receives articles from the field of clinical cardiology, angiology, as well as heart and vascular surgery.
As the official journal of the German Cardiac Society, it gives a current and competent survey on the diagnosis and therapy of heart and vascular diseases.