Back

Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Treating De Novo Large Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 13 Studies Involving 2,888 Patients

Caminiti, R.; Vizzari, G.; Ielasi, A.; Vetta, G.; Parlavecchio, A.; Della Rocca, D.; Pellicano, M.; Pellegrini, D.; Montonati, C.; Tespili, M.; Micari, A.

2023-12-11 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2023.12.10.23299794 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionDrug-coated balloon (DCB) is an established treatment option for in-stent restenosis and small vessel, de novo, coronary artery disease (CAD). Although the use of this tool is increasing in everyday practice, little is known about its performance in the treatment of de novo, large vessel CAD (LV-CAD). A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB versus drug-eluting stent (DES) in this setting. MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed including Medline, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases up to October 24th 2023, for studies which compared efficacy and safety of DCB versus DES in the treatment of de novo lesions in large vessels ([≥] 2.5 mm), reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023470417). The outcomes analysed were cardiovascular death (CVD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), all cause death (ACD) and late lumen loss (LLL) at follow-up. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI). ResultsA total of 13 studies (6 randomized controlled trials and 7 observational studies) involving 2,888 patients (DCB n=1,334; DES n=1,533) with de novo LV-CAD were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. A DCB-only strategy was non inferior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES in terms of CVD (RR 0.49; 95% CI [0.23 - 1.03]; p=0.06), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI [0.16 - 1.45]; p=0.89), TLR (RR 0.73; 95% CI [0.40 - 1.34]; p=0.32), ACD (RR 0.78; 95% CI [0.57 - 1.07]; p=0.12) and LLL (MD -0.14; 95% CI [-0.30 - 0.02]; p=0.18) at follow-up. ConclusionOur meta-analysis showed that DCB PCI might provide a promising option for the management of selected, de novo LV-CAD compared to DES. However, more focused RCTs are needed to further prove the benefits of a "metal free" strategy in this subset of CAD.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Atherosclerosis
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.2%
2
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.2%
3
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.2%
4
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
7.0%
5
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.2%
6
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.2%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.7%
9
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
10
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.0%
11
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
12
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.0%
13
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.8%
14
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.7%
15
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
65 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
16
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.6%
17
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
19
Biomaterials
78 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
21
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
22
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%