Drug-Coated balloons vs drug-eluting stents for the treatment of small coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary
Coated Materials, Biocompatible
Coronary Artery Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Coronary Restenosis
/ diagnostic imaging
Drug-Eluting Stents
Humans
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
/ adverse effects
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Prosthesis Design
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Risk Factors
Treatment Outcome
drug coated balloons
drug eluting stents
percutaneous coronary intervention
small vessel coronary artery disease
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2021
01 07 2021
Historique:
revised:
11
05
2020
received:
20
02
2020
accepted:
31
05
2020
pubmed:
28
6
2020
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
28
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is conflicting evidence about the effects of drug-coated balloons (DCB) compared with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with native small vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases and main international conference proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing DCB versus DES in patients with native small vessel CAD. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The primary endpoint was target vessel revascularization (TVR). Secondary clinical endpoints were: myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), all-cause death, cardiac death, and stent thrombosis or target vessel thrombosis. Secondary angiographic outcomes were: in-segment restenosis, in-segment percentage-diameter stenosis, in-segment late lumen loss, in-segment net luminal gain, and in-segment minimal lumen diameter. Five trials enrolling 1,459 patients were included. Mean clinical follow-up was 10.2 months. The use of DCB, compared with DES, was associated with similar risk of TVR (odds ratio [OR]: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 1.68; p = .92), TLR (OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 0.57 to 5.28; p = .33), all-cause death (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.14 to 7.48; p = .98), with a trend toward a lower risk of MI (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.23 to 1.03; p = .06), and with significant lower risk of vessel thrombosis (OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.94; p = .04). DCB use was associated with similar risk of angiographic restenosis (OR: 1.12; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.84; p = .64), comparable late luminal loss (standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.18; 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.03; p = .09), while leading to significant higher percentage diameter stenosis (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.41; p < .01) and smaller minimal luminal diameter (SMD: -0.52; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.18; p = .003). Compared with DES, the use of DCB for the treatment of native small vessel CAD is associated with similar TVR and restenosis and reduces the risk of vessel thrombosis, although DES implantation yields slightly better angiographic surrogate endpoints.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND
There is conflicting evidence about the effects of drug-coated balloons (DCB) compared with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with native small vessel coronary artery disease (CAD).
METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases and main international conference proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing DCB versus DES in patients with native small vessel CAD. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The primary endpoint was target vessel revascularization (TVR). Secondary clinical endpoints were: myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), all-cause death, cardiac death, and stent thrombosis or target vessel thrombosis. Secondary angiographic outcomes were: in-segment restenosis, in-segment percentage-diameter stenosis, in-segment late lumen loss, in-segment net luminal gain, and in-segment minimal lumen diameter.
RESULTS
Five trials enrolling 1,459 patients were included. Mean clinical follow-up was 10.2 months. The use of DCB, compared with DES, was associated with similar risk of TVR (odds ratio [OR]: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 1.68; p = .92), TLR (OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 0.57 to 5.28; p = .33), all-cause death (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.14 to 7.48; p = .98), with a trend toward a lower risk of MI (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.23 to 1.03; p = .06), and with significant lower risk of vessel thrombosis (OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.94; p = .04). DCB use was associated with similar risk of angiographic restenosis (OR: 1.12; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.84; p = .64), comparable late luminal loss (standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.18; 95% CI: -0.39 to 0.03; p = .09), while leading to significant higher percentage diameter stenosis (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.41; p < .01) and smaller minimal luminal diameter (SMD: -0.52; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.18; p = .003).
CONCLUSION
Compared with DES, the use of DCB for the treatment of native small vessel CAD is associated with similar TVR and restenosis and reduces the risk of vessel thrombosis, although DES implantation yields slightly better angiographic surrogate endpoints.
Substances chimiques
Coated Materials, Biocompatible
0
Pharmaceutical Preparations
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
66-75Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Akiyama T, Moussa I, Reimers B, et al. Angiographic and clinical outcome following coronary stenting of small vessels: a comparison with coronary stenting of large vessels. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32(6):1610-1618.
Cassese S, Byrne RA, Tada T, et al. Incidence and predictors of restenosis after coronary stenting in 10 004 patients with surveillance angiography. Heart. 2014;100(2):153-159.
Mehilli J, Dibra A, Kastrati A, et al. Randomized trial of paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents in small coronary vessels. Eur Heart J. 2006;27(3):260-266.
Godino C, Furuichi S, Latib A, et al. Clinical and angiographic follow-up of small vessel lesions treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents (from the TRUE registry). Am J Cardiol. 2008;102(8):1002-1008.
Rodriguez AE, Rodriguez Alemparte M, Fernandez Pereira C, et al. Latin American randomized trial of balloon angioplasty versus coronary stenting in diabetic patients with small vessel reference size (Latin American small vessel [LASMAL II] trial): immediate and long-term results. Am Heart J. 2005;150(1):188.
Park S, Lee CW, Hong MK, et al. Randomized comparison of coronary stenting with optimal balloon angioplasty for treatment of lesions in small coronary arteries. Eur Heart J. 2000;21(21):1785-1789.
Savage MP, Fischman DL, Rake R, et al. Efficacy of coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty in small coronary arteries. Stent restenosis study (STRESS) investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31(2):307-311.
Tsuchikane E, Takeda Y, Nasu K, Awata N, Kobayashi T. Balloon angioplasty plus cilostazol administration versus primary stenting of small coronary artery disease: final results of COMPASS. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2004;63(1):44-51.
Doucet S, Schalij MJ, Vrolix MC, et al. Stent placement to prevent restenosis after angioplasty in small coronary arteries. Circulation. 2001;104(17):2029-2033.
Koning R, Eltchaninoff H, Commeau P, et al. Stent placement compared with balloon angioplasty for small coronary arteries: in-hospital and 6-month clinical and angiographic results. Circulation. 2001;104(14):1604-1608.
Moer R, Myreng Y, Mølstad P, et al. Stenting in small coronary arteries (SISCA) trial. A randomized comparison between balloon angioplasty and the heparin-coated beStent. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38(6):1598-1603.
Kastrati A, Schömig A, Dirschinger J, et al. A randomized trial comparing stenting with balloon angioplasty in small vessels in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease. ISAR-SMART study investigators. Intracoronary stenting or angioplasty for restenosis reduction in small arteries. Circulation. 2000;102(21):2593-2598.
Siontis GCM, Piccolo R, Praz F, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions for the treatment of Stenoses in small coronary arteries: a network meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(13):1324-1334.
Richelsen RKB, Overvad TF, Jensen SE. Drug-eluting balloons in the treatment of coronary De novo lesions: a comprehensive review. Cardiol Ther. 2016;5(2):133-160.
Latib A, Colombo A, Castriota F, et al. A randomized multicenter study comparing a paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in small coronary vessels: the bello (balloon elution and late loss optimization) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(24):2473-2480.
Cortese B, Micheli A, Picchi A, et al. Paclitaxel-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent during PCI of small coronary vessels, a prospective randomised clinical trial. The PICCOLETO Study Heart. 2010;96(16):1291-1296.
Jeger RV, Farah A, Ohlow MA, et al. Drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10150):849-856.
Tang Y, Qiao S, Tian J, et al. Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for small-vessel disease: the RESTORE SVD China randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(23):2381-2392.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009 Jan;339:b2700.
Risk of bias tools - Current version of RoB 2. Available from: https://www.riskofbias.info/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/current-version-of-rob-2
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;l4898. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):97-111.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560.
Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2001;323(7304):101-105.
Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(10):991-996.
Pocock SJ, Lansky AJ, Mehran R, et al. Angiographic surrogate end points in drug-eluting stent trials. A systematic evaluation based on individual patient data from 11 randomized, controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(1):23-32.
Li M, Guo C, Lv Y, et al. Drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent in de novo small coronary vessel disease. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(21):e15622.
Buchanan AKD, Torguson R, Rogers T, et al. In-stent restenosis of drug-eluting stents compared to a matched Group of Patients with De novo coronary artery stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2018;121(12):1512-1518.
Mauri L, Orav EJ, Kuntz RE. Late loss in lumen diameter and binary restenosis for drug-eluting stent comparison. Circulation. 2005;111(25):3435-3442.
Hoffmann R, Mintz GS, Pichard AD, Kent KM, Satler LF, Leon MB. Intimal hyperplasia thickness at follow-up is independent of stent size: a serial intravascular ultrasound study. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82(10):1168-1172.
Stone GW, Midei M, Newman W, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: two-year clinical follow-up from the clinical evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions (SPIRIT) III trial. Circulation. 2009;119(5):680-686.
Stone GW, Rizvi A, Sudhir K, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. 2-year follow-up from the SPIRIT (clinical evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus eluting coronary stent system) IV trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(1):19-25.
Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, et al. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(15):1395-1407.