药物包被球囊与普通球囊血管成形术治疗功能障碍透析通路:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.5 2区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Qianqian Zhang, Deshuang Zou, Wenqiong Mao, Xing Su, Jingzhen Li
{"title":"药物包被球囊与普通球囊血管成形术治疗功能障碍透析通路:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Qianqian Zhang, Deshuang Zou, Wenqiong Mao, Xing Su, Jingzhen Li","doi":"10.1177/15266028251359499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal treatment for dysfunctional dialysis access between drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) and plain balloon angioplasty (PBA), including standard balloon angioplasty (SBA) and high-pressure balloon angioplasty (HPBA), remains unclear. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of DCBA and PBA.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCBA and PBA. Outcomes included target lesion primary patency (TLPP), access circuit primary patency (ACPP), target lesion revascularization (TLR), technical success, and all-cause mortality. A meta-analysis with a priori subgroup analysis (ie, DCBA vs HPBA and DCBA vs SBA) was performed using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five RCTs with a total of 2838 patients were included. DCBA showed higher TLPP at 6 months (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12-1.43, p<0.001) and 12 months (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.13-1.45, p<0.001) than PBA. ACPP was also superior with DCBA at 6 months (RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.04-1.40, p=0.002) and 12 months (RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.23-1.65, p<0.001). However, no significant difference was found between DCBA and HPBA for TLPP (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.83-2.67, p=0.181) and ACPP (RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.92-1.84, p=0.133) at 12 months. TLR was lower with DCBA at 6 months (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.35-0.80, p=0.003) and 12 months (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68-0.93, p=0.005). No significant difference in the technical success rate and all-cause mortality was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DCBA improves TLPP and ACPP and reduces the TLR rate compared to PBA. However, it shows no significant advantage over HPBA in terms of TLPP and ACPP at 12 months. The technical success rate and all-cause mortality were similar between the 2 approaches.Clinical ImpactThis meta-analysis highlights the differential effectiveness of drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) compared with standard balloon angioplasty (SBA) and high-pressure balloon angioplasty (HPBA) in dysfunctional dialysis access. DCBA significantly improves primary patency and reduces revascularization rates compared to SBA, supporting its clinical utility. However, no clear advantage was found over HPBA at 12 months. These results suggest that while DCBA offers benefits over SBA, its added value over HPBA remains uncertain. Clinicians should consider individual patient factors and access characteristics when selecting the optimal angioplasty strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":50210,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"15266028251359499"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Plain Balloon Angioplasty for the Treatment of Dysfunctional Dialysis Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Qianqian Zhang, Deshuang Zou, Wenqiong Mao, Xing Su, Jingzhen Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15266028251359499\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal treatment for dysfunctional dialysis access between drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) and plain balloon angioplasty (PBA), including standard balloon angioplasty (SBA) and high-pressure balloon angioplasty (HPBA), remains unclear. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of DCBA and PBA.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCBA and PBA. Outcomes included target lesion primary patency (TLPP), access circuit primary patency (ACPP), target lesion revascularization (TLR), technical success, and all-cause mortality. A meta-analysis with a priori subgroup analysis (ie, DCBA vs HPBA and DCBA vs SBA) was performed using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five RCTs with a total of 2838 patients were included. DCBA showed higher TLPP at 6 months (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12-1.43, p<0.001) and 12 months (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.13-1.45, p<0.001) than PBA. ACPP was also superior with DCBA at 6 months (RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.04-1.40, p=0.002) and 12 months (RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.23-1.65, p<0.001). However, no significant difference was found between DCBA and HPBA for TLPP (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.83-2.67, p=0.181) and ACPP (RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.92-1.84, p=0.133) at 12 months. TLR was lower with DCBA at 6 months (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.35-0.80, p=0.003) and 12 months (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68-0.93, p=0.005). No significant difference in the technical success rate and all-cause mortality was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>DCBA improves TLPP and ACPP and reduces the TLR rate compared to PBA. However, it shows no significant advantage over HPBA in terms of TLPP and ACPP at 12 months. The technical success rate and all-cause mortality were similar between the 2 approaches.Clinical ImpactThis meta-analysis highlights the differential effectiveness of drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) compared with standard balloon angioplasty (SBA) and high-pressure balloon angioplasty (HPBA) in dysfunctional dialysis access. DCBA significantly improves primary patency and reduces revascularization rates compared to SBA, supporting its clinical utility. However, no clear advantage was found over HPBA at 12 months. These results suggest that while DCBA offers benefits over SBA, its added value over HPBA remains uncertain. Clinicians should consider individual patient factors and access characteristics when selecting the optimal angioplasty strategy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Endovascular Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15266028251359499\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"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/10.1177/15266028251359499\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028251359499","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

摘要

背景:药物包被球囊血管成形术(DCBA)和普通球囊血管成形术(PBA),包括标准球囊血管成形术(SBA)和高压球囊血管成形术(HPBA)之间的最佳治疗功能障碍透析通道仍不清楚。本研究旨在比较DCBA和PBA的疗效和安全性。材料和方法:进行了一项系统评价,以确定比较DCBA和PBA的随机对照试验(rct)。结果包括靶病变原发性通畅(TLPP)、通路原发性通畅(ACPP)、靶病变血运重建术(TLR)、技术成功和全因死亡率。采用随机效应模型计算风险比(rr)和95%置信区间(ci),采用先验亚组分析(即DCBA vs HPBA和DCBA vs SBA)进行meta分析。结果:纳入25项随机对照试验,共2838例患者。DCBA在6个月时显示更高的TLPP (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12-1.43)。结论:与PBA相比,DCBA可改善TLPP和ACPP,降低TLR率。然而,在12个月的TLPP和ACPP方面,它与HPBA相比没有明显的优势。两种方法的技术成功率和全因死亡率相似。临床影响本荟萃分析强调了药物包被球囊血管成形术(DCBA)与标准球囊血管成形术(SBA)和高压球囊血管成形术(HPBA)在功能障碍透析通道中的差异效果。与SBA相比,DCBA可显著改善原发性通畅,降低血运重建率,支持其临床应用。然而,在12个月时,与HPBA相比没有明显的优势。这些结果表明,虽然DCBA比SBA有优势,但它比HPBA的附加值仍然不确定。临床医生在选择最佳血管成形术策略时应考虑患者个体因素和通道特征。
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 Balloon Versus Plain Balloon Angioplasty for the Treatment of Dysfunctional Dialysis Access: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: The optimal treatment for dysfunctional dialysis access between drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) and plain balloon angioplasty (PBA), including standard balloon angioplasty (SBA) and high-pressure balloon angioplasty (HPBA), remains unclear. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of DCBA and PBA.

Materials and methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCBA and PBA. Outcomes included target lesion primary patency (TLPP), access circuit primary patency (ACPP), target lesion revascularization (TLR), technical success, and all-cause mortality. A meta-analysis with a priori subgroup analysis (ie, DCBA vs HPBA and DCBA vs SBA) was performed using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Twenty-five RCTs with a total of 2838 patients were included. DCBA showed higher TLPP at 6 months (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12-1.43, p<0.001) and 12 months (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.13-1.45, p<0.001) than PBA. ACPP was also superior with DCBA at 6 months (RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.04-1.40, p=0.002) and 12 months (RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.23-1.65, p<0.001). However, no significant difference was found between DCBA and HPBA for TLPP (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.83-2.67, p=0.181) and ACPP (RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.92-1.84, p=0.133) at 12 months. TLR was lower with DCBA at 6 months (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.35-0.80, p=0.003) and 12 months (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.68-0.93, p=0.005). No significant difference in the technical success rate and all-cause mortality was observed.

Conclusions: DCBA improves TLPP and ACPP and reduces the TLR rate compared to PBA. However, it shows no significant advantage over HPBA in terms of TLPP and ACPP at 12 months. The technical success rate and all-cause mortality were similar between the 2 approaches.Clinical ImpactThis meta-analysis highlights the differential effectiveness of drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) compared with standard balloon angioplasty (SBA) and high-pressure balloon angioplasty (HPBA) in dysfunctional dialysis access. DCBA significantly improves primary patency and reduces revascularization rates compared to SBA, supporting its clinical utility. However, no clear advantage was found over HPBA at 12 months. These results suggest that while DCBA offers benefits over SBA, its added value over HPBA remains uncertain. Clinicians should consider individual patient factors and access characteristics when selecting the optimal angioplasty strategy.

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
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