Jinghan Zeng, Yilu Liu, Tianlang Zhao, Jiansong Yuan, Weixian Yang, Man Wang
{"title":"药物涂层球囊与药物洗脱支架治疗大血管冠状动脉疾病：荟萃分析","authors":"Jinghan Zeng, Yilu Liu, Tianlang Zhao, Jiansong Yuan, Weixian Yang, Man Wang","doi":"10.3390/jcdd12090359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of treatments for large vessel coronary artery disease between drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang, and selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies which compared drug-coated balloons (DCBs) with drug-eluting stents (DESs). The reference vessel diameter (RVD) should be greater than 2.75 mm. The results of 12 studies with a total of 2634 patients were included in this meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that the DCB group was not inferior to the DES group in terms of the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR). (RR = 1.25, 95% CI: [0.84, 1.85], <i>p</i> = 0.27, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), and the incidence of bleeding events in the DCB group was lower than that in the DES group (RR = 0.30, 95% CI: [0.15, 0.59], <i>p</i> = 0.0004). The results also showed that the post-intervention minimal lumen diameter (MLD) in the DCB group was smaller than that in the DES group. (RR = -0.37, 95% CI: [-0.59, -0.16], <i>p</i> = 0.0007), but the follow-up MLD in the DCB group was not less than that in the DES group (RR = -0.03, 95% CI: [-0.14,-0.08], <i>p</i> = 0.61). Additionally the DCB group had less late lumen loss (LLL) compared with the DES group. (RR = -0.31, 95% CI: [-0.60, -0.02], <i>p</i> < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis confirms that in the early and late stages after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), DCB is not inferior in efficacy and safety to DES for de novo large coronary lesions with RVD > 2.75 mm.</p>","PeriodicalId":15197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","volume":"12 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12470863/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for Large Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jinghan Zeng, Yilu Liu, Tianlang Zhao, Jiansong Yuan, Weixian Yang, Man Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jcdd12090359\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of treatments for large vessel coronary artery disease between drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang, and selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies which compared drug-coated balloons (DCBs) with drug-eluting stents (DESs). The reference vessel diameter (RVD) should be greater than 2.75 mm. The results of 12 studies with a total of 2634 patients were included in this meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that the DCB group was not inferior to the DES group in terms of the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR). (RR = 1.25, 95% CI: [0.84, 1.85], <i>p</i> = 0.27, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), and the incidence of bleeding events in the DCB group was lower than that in the DES group (RR = 0.30, 95% CI: [0.15, 0.59], <i>p</i> = 0.0004). The results also showed that the post-intervention minimal lumen diameter (MLD) in the DCB group was smaller than that in the DES group. (RR = -0.37, 95% CI: [-0.59, -0.16], <i>p</i> = 0.0007), but the follow-up MLD in the DCB group was not less than that in the DES group (RR = -0.03, 95% CI: [-0.14,-0.08], <i>p</i> = 0.61). Additionally the DCB group had less late lumen loss (LLL) compared with the DES group. (RR = -0.31, 95% CI: [-0.60, -0.02], <i>p</i> < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis confirms that in the early and late stages after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), DCB is not inferior in efficacy and safety to DES for de novo large coronary lesions with RVD > 2.75 mm.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease\",\"volume\":\"12 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12470863/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd12090359\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd12090359","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的：我们旨在对药物包被球囊和药物洗脱支架治疗大血管冠状动脉疾病进行荟萃分析。方法：检索PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane、中国知网、万方等数据库，选取比较药物包被球囊（DCBs）与药物洗脱支架（DESs）的随机对照试验（rct）或队列研究。参考血管直径（RVD）应大于2.75 mm。本荟萃分析纳入了12项研究的结果，共2634例患者。结果：DCB组靶区血管重建术（TLR）发生率不低于DES组。（RR = 1.25, 95% CI: [0.84, 1.85], p = 0.27, I2 = 0%）， DCB组出血事件发生率低于DES组（RR = 0.30, 95% CI: [0.15, 0.59], p = 0.0004）。DCB组干预后最小管腔直径（MLD）小于DES组。（RR = -0.37, 95% CI: [-0.59, -0.16], p = 0.0007），但DCB组随访MLD不低于DES组（RR = -0.03, 95% CI: [-0.14,-0.08], p = 0.61）。此外，与DES组相比，DCB组的晚期管腔损失（LLL）更少。（RR = -0.31, 95% CI: [-0.60, -0.02], p < 0.0001）。结论：本荟萃分析证实，在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）的早期和晚期，DCB治疗RVD > 2.75 mm的新发大冠状动脉病变的疗效和安全性不逊于DES。
Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for Large Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis.
Objective: We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of treatments for large vessel coronary artery disease between drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents.
Method: We searched databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang, and selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies which compared drug-coated balloons (DCBs) with drug-eluting stents (DESs). The reference vessel diameter (RVD) should be greater than 2.75 mm. The results of 12 studies with a total of 2634 patients were included in this meta-analysis.
Results: The results showed that the DCB group was not inferior to the DES group in terms of the incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR). (RR = 1.25, 95% CI: [0.84, 1.85], p = 0.27, I2 = 0%), and the incidence of bleeding events in the DCB group was lower than that in the DES group (RR = 0.30, 95% CI: [0.15, 0.59], p = 0.0004). The results also showed that the post-intervention minimal lumen diameter (MLD) in the DCB group was smaller than that in the DES group. (RR = -0.37, 95% CI: [-0.59, -0.16], p = 0.0007), but the follow-up MLD in the DCB group was not less than that in the DES group (RR = -0.03, 95% CI: [-0.14,-0.08], p = 0.61). Additionally the DCB group had less late lumen loss (LLL) compared with the DES group. (RR = -0.31, 95% CI: [-0.60, -0.02], p < 0.0001).
Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirms that in the early and late stages after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), DCB is not inferior in efficacy and safety to DES for de novo large coronary lesions with RVD > 2.75 mm.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
