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。

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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:药物包被球囊(DCBs)治疗支架内再狭窄和小血管冠状动脉疾病的疗效已得到证实,但在大血管新生病变中的应用仍存在争议。目的:我们试图研究DCB与药物洗脱支架(DES)治疗大血管新生冠状动脉病变后的血管造影和临床结果。方法:系统检索电子数据库至2025年3月的相关研究。使用随机效应模型进行汇总估计,比较结果。我们根据研究设计进行了亚组分析。结果:我们的分析包括16项研究(8项随机对照试验和8项观察性试验),9745例患者。DCB组随访时间为17±8个月,DES组随访时间为16±4个月。DCB组急性获益明显低于DES组(MD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.63 ~ -0.26; p)结论:与DES组相比,DCB治疗的即时血管造影结果不太理想,但在冠状动脉新生病变患者中,其临床效果相当。
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 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.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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