Home > DARE Reviews > Drug eluting balloon versus drug eluting...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet].

Drug eluting balloon versus drug eluting stent in percutaneous coronary interventions: insights from a meta-analysis of 1462 patients

Review published: 2013.

Bibliographic details: Lupi A, Rognoni A, Secco GG, Porto I, Nardi F, Lazzero M, Rossi L, Parisi R, Fattori R, Genoni G, Rosso R, Stella PR, Sheiban I, Bolognese L, Liistro F, Bongo AS, Agostoni P.  Drug eluting balloon versus drug eluting stent in percutaneous coronary interventions: insights from a meta-analysis of 1462 patients. International Journal of Cardiology 2013; 168(5): 4608-4616. [PubMed: 23948110]

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Drug eluting balloons (DEB) have been developed to overcome the limitations of drug eluting stents (DES), but clinic results of various DEB studies are still not consistent. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to compare outcomes of DEB and DES for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS: Medline/Web databases were searched for studies comparing DEB and DES for obstructive CAD, reporting late lumen loss (LLL) and rates for overall mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTS: 8 studies (1462 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with DES, DEB treated patients showed non-significantly higher LLL (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.15 to 0.78, P=0.18) and non-significantly higher rate of binary restenosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.40 [0.68-2.48], P=0.36). Mortality (OR 1.13[0.54-2.37], P=0.74), MI (OR 0.95, [0.50-1.80], P=0.87), ST (OR 1.12, [0.34-4.19], P=0.77) and TLR rates (OR 1.19[0.60-2.38], P=0.61) were similar between the 2 treatments. A pre-specified meta-regression analysis showed that LLL WMD and TLR OR were inversely correlated to the prevalence of diabetes (P<0.0001) and directly correlated to reference coronary diameters (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis showed that compared to DES, DEB use resulted in similar clinical efficacy and safety. Thus DEB could be considered a reasonable alternative to DES for the treatment of CAD in selected clinical settings (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01760200).

© 2013.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2014 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...