Ahmed Hassan, Ahmed Mansour, Mohamed Hamouda Elkasaby, Shrouk Ramadan, Ahmed Nabil, Pannipa Suwannasom, Marwan Saad, Robbert J de Winter, Rayyan Hemetsberger, Mohammad Abdelghani
{"title":"药物包被球囊与药物洗脱支架治疗大冠状动脉新生病变:血管造影和临床结果的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ahmed Hassan, Ahmed Mansour, Mohamed Hamouda Elkasaby, Shrouk Ramadan, Ahmed Nabil, Pannipa Suwannasom, Marwan Saad, Robbert J de Winter, Rayyan Hemetsberger, Mohammad Abdelghani","doi":"10.1002/ccd.70223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efficacy of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) has been established in the treatment of in-stent restenosis and small vessel coronary artery disease, while utility in large-vessel de novo lesions remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We sought to study the angiographic and clinical outcomes after treatment of large vessel de novo coronary lesions with DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched electronic databases through March 2025 for relevant studies. Outcomes were compared using random effects modeling for summary estimates. We performed subgroup analyses by study design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis included 16 studies (eight randomized controlled trials and eight observational) with 9745 patients. Follow-up duration was 17 ± 8 months for DCB and 16 ± 4 months for DES. While acute gain was significantly lower with DCB (MD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.26; p < 0.00001; I² = 74%), no significant differences were observed in late lumen loss (MD = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.04; p = 0.47; I² = 47%) or binary restenosis (RR = 2.22, 95% CI: 0.94 to 5.24; p = 0.07; I² = 13%). Clinically, there was no significant difference between DCB and DES in target lesion failure and overall major adverse cardiac events, and this was consistent regardless of the study design (randomized vs. observational).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with DES, treatment with DCB yields a less optimal immediate angiographic result but comparable clinical outcomes in patients with de novo lesions of large coronary arteries.</p>","PeriodicalId":520583,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for De Novo Lesions of Large Coronary Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Angiographic and Clinical Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Hassan, Ahmed Mansour, Mohamed Hamouda Elkasaby, Shrouk Ramadan, Ahmed Nabil, Pannipa Suwannasom, Marwan Saad, Robbert J de Winter, Rayyan Hemetsberger, Mohammad Abdelghani\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ccd.70223\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efficacy of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) has been established in the treatment of in-stent restenosis and small vessel coronary artery disease, while utility in large-vessel de novo lesions remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We sought to study the angiographic and clinical outcomes after treatment of large vessel de novo coronary lesions with DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched electronic databases through March 2025 for relevant studies. Outcomes were compared using random effects modeling for summary estimates. We performed subgroup analyses by study design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis included 16 studies (eight randomized controlled trials and eight observational) with 9745 patients. Follow-up duration was 17 ± 8 months for DCB and 16 ± 4 months for DES. While acute gain was significantly lower with DCB (MD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.26; p < 0.00001; I² = 74%), no significant differences were observed in late lumen loss (MD = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.04; p = 0.47; I² = 47%) or binary restenosis (RR = 2.22, 95% CI: 0.94 to 5.24; p = 0.07; I² = 13%). Clinically, there was no significant difference between DCB and DES in target lesion failure and overall major adverse cardiac events, and this was consistent regardless of the study design (randomized vs. observational).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with DES, treatment with DCB yields a less optimal immediate angiographic result but comparable clinical outcomes in patients with de novo lesions of large coronary arteries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.70223\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.70223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for De Novo Lesions of Large Coronary Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Angiographic and Clinical Outcomes.
Background: Efficacy of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) has been established in the treatment of in-stent restenosis and small vessel coronary artery disease, while utility in large-vessel de novo lesions remains controversial.
Aims: We sought to study the angiographic and clinical outcomes after treatment of large vessel de novo coronary lesions with DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES).
Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases through March 2025 for relevant studies. Outcomes were compared using random effects modeling for summary estimates. We performed subgroup analyses by study design.
Results: Our analysis included 16 studies (eight randomized controlled trials and eight observational) with 9745 patients. Follow-up duration was 17 ± 8 months for DCB and 16 ± 4 months for DES. While acute gain was significantly lower with DCB (MD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.26; p < 0.00001; I² = 74%), no significant differences were observed in late lumen loss (MD = -0.03, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.04; p = 0.47; I² = 47%) or binary restenosis (RR = 2.22, 95% CI: 0.94 to 5.24; p = 0.07; I² = 13%). Clinically, there was no significant difference between DCB and DES in target lesion failure and overall major adverse cardiac events, and this was consistent regardless of the study design (randomized vs. observational).
Conclusion: Compared with DES, treatment with DCB yields a less optimal immediate angiographic result but comparable clinical outcomes in patients with de novo lesions of large coronary arteries.