药物包被球囊与普通球囊血管成形术治疗冠状动脉分支病变:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Mustafa Bilal Özbay, Serhat Değirmen, Ayşenur Güllü, Bede Nnaemeka Nriagu, Yasin Özen, Çağrı Yayla
{"title":"药物包被球囊与普通球囊血管成形术治疗冠状动脉分支病变:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Mustafa Bilal Özbay, Serhat Değirmen, Ayşenur Güllü, Bede Nnaemeka Nriagu, Yasin Özen, Çağrı Yayla","doi":"10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2025.5296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bifurcation lesions pose unique challenges during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are associated with suboptimal outcomes. The standard approach involves provisional stenting of the main branch (MB) with plain balloon angioplasty (BA) for compromised side branches (SBs). It remains unclear whether drug-coated balloon (DCB) or plain balloon angioplasty pose a better strategy to treat SB in bifurcation lesions. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy of DCB versus BA in managing SBs of bifurcation lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB and BA for treating bifurcation lesions. Outcomes included SB late lumen loss (LLL), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs were included, encompassing 1,255 patients, of whom 628 (50.4%) underwent DCB angioplasty; 946 (75.4%) were male, and the mean age was 63.5 years. Drug-coated balloons significantly reduced MI risk (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35-0.88, P = .010). DCB use resulted in similar LLL in the SB compared with BA (mean difference (MD) = -0.12 mm, 95% CI: -0.24-0.01, P = .070). No significant differences were observed in TLR (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.45-3.14, P = .720), MACE (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = .070), and all-cause mortality (RR = 2.35, 95% CI: 0.61-9.00, P = .210).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this meta-analysis of RCTs, DCB significantly reduced MI without affecting LLL, TLR, MACE, and all-cause mortality compared with BA in the SB of bifurcation lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":7835,"journal":{"name":"Anatolian Journal of Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12151106/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drug-Coated Balloons vs. Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Side Branch Management in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mustafa Bilal Özbay, Serhat Değirmen, Ayşenur Güllü, Bede Nnaemeka Nriagu, Yasin Özen, Çağrı Yayla\",\"doi\":\"10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2025.5296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bifurcation lesions pose unique challenges during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are associated with suboptimal outcomes. The standard approach involves provisional stenting of the main branch (MB) with plain balloon angioplasty (BA) for compromised side branches (SBs). It remains unclear whether drug-coated balloon (DCB) or plain balloon angioplasty pose a better strategy to treat SB in bifurcation lesions. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy of DCB versus BA in managing SBs of bifurcation lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB and BA for treating bifurcation lesions. Outcomes included SB late lumen loss (LLL), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs were included, encompassing 1,255 patients, of whom 628 (50.4%) underwent DCB angioplasty; 946 (75.4%) were male, and the mean age was 63.5 years. Drug-coated balloons significantly reduced MI risk (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35-0.88, P = .010). DCB use resulted in similar LLL in the SB compared with BA (mean difference (MD) = -0.12 mm, 95% CI: -0.24-0.01, P = .070). No significant differences were observed in TLR (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.45-3.14, P = .720), MACE (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = .070), and all-cause mortality (RR = 2.35, 95% CI: 0.61-9.00, P = .210).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this meta-analysis of RCTs, DCB significantly reduced MI without affecting LLL, TLR, MACE, and all-cause mortality compared with BA in the SB of bifurcation lesions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7835,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anatolian Journal of Cardiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12151106/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anatolian Journal of Cardiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2025.5296\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatolian Journal of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2025.5296","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)中,分叉病变是一个独特的挑战,并与次优结果相关。标准的方法包括主分支(MB)的临时支架植入和受损侧分支(SBs)的普通球囊血管成形术(BA)。目前尚不清楚药物包被球囊(DCB)或普通球囊血管成形术是治疗分叉病变中SB的更好策略。本系统综述和荟萃分析比较了DCB与BA治疗分叉性病变的疗效。方法:检索MEDLINE、Cochrane和EMBASE数据库,比较DCB和BA治疗分叉病变的随机对照试验(rct)。结果包括SB晚期管腔丧失(LLL)、主要不良心血管事件(MACE)、全因死亡率、心肌梗死(MI)和靶病变血运重建术(TLR)。结果:纳入5项随机对照试验,共1255例患者,其中628例(50.4%)行DCB血管成形术;男性946例(75.4%),平均年龄63.5岁。药物包被球囊显著降低心肌梗死风险(风险比[RR] = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35-0.88, P = 0.010)。与BA相比,使用DCB导致SB的ll相似(平均差异(MD) = -0.12 mm, 95% CI: -0.24-0.01, P = 0.070)。TLR (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.45-3.14, P = 0.720)、MACE (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = 0.070)和全因死亡率(RR = 2.35, 95% CI: 0.61-9.00, P = 0.210)均无显著差异。结论:在这项随机对照试验的荟萃分析中,与BA相比,DCB可显著降低心肌梗死,但不影响LLL、TLR、MACE和全因死亡率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Drug-Coated Balloons vs. Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Side Branch Management in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Drug-Coated Balloons vs. Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Side Branch Management in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Drug-Coated Balloons vs. Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Side Branch Management in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Drug-Coated Balloons vs. Plain Balloon Angioplasty for Side Branch Management in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Bifurcation lesions pose unique challenges during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are associated with suboptimal outcomes. The standard approach involves provisional stenting of the main branch (MB) with plain balloon angioplasty (BA) for compromised side branches (SBs). It remains unclear whether drug-coated balloon (DCB) or plain balloon angioplasty pose a better strategy to treat SB in bifurcation lesions. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy of DCB versus BA in managing SBs of bifurcation lesions.

Methods: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB and BA for treating bifurcation lesions. Outcomes included SB late lumen loss (LLL), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR).

Results: Five RCTs were included, encompassing 1,255 patients, of whom 628 (50.4%) underwent DCB angioplasty; 946 (75.4%) were male, and the mean age was 63.5 years. Drug-coated balloons significantly reduced MI risk (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35-0.88, P = .010). DCB use resulted in similar LLL in the SB compared with BA (mean difference (MD) = -0.12 mm, 95% CI: -0.24-0.01, P = .070). No significant differences were observed in TLR (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.45-3.14, P = .720), MACE (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = .070), and all-cause mortality (RR = 2.35, 95% CI: 0.61-9.00, P = .210).

Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of RCTs, DCB significantly reduced MI without affecting LLL, TLR, MACE, and all-cause mortality compared with BA in the SB of bifurcation lesions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anatolian Journal of Cardiology
Anatolian Journal of Cardiology CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
270
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology is an international monthly periodical on cardiology published on independent, unbiased, double-blinded and peer-review principles. The journal’s publication language is English. The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology aims to publish qualified and original clinical, experimental and basic research on cardiology at the international level. The journal’s scope also covers editorial comments, reviews of innovations in medical education and practice, case reports, original images, scientific letters, educational articles, letters to the editor, articles on publication ethics, diagnostic puzzles, and issues in social cardiology. The target readership includes academic members, specialists, residents, and general practitioners working in the fields of adult cardiology, pediatric cardiology, cardiovascular surgery and internal medicine.
×
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